Greenfield, Alloa, Scotland, FK10 2AD (Tel.01259-450000)
PLANNING COMMITTEE
Thursday 13 June 2013 at 9.30 am
Venue: Council Chamber, Greenfield, Alloa, FK10 2AD
For further information contact Finance and Corporate Services, Clackmannanshire Council, Greenfield, Alloa, FK10 2AD Phone: 01259 452106/2004 Fax: 01259 452230 E-mail: [email protected] www.clacksweb.org.uk
Date Time
1
Scheme of Delegation: Duties and Responsibilities Delegated to Committees
Planning Committee
Subject to paragraphs 3.28 and 11.4 of the Scheme of Delegation, the Planning Committee has responsibility for taking decisions on planning applications and enforcing planning laws, and;
Carrying out the local authority's function in relation to street naming under section 97 of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982; and
Dealing with regulatory and enforcement issues arising from matters delegated to or delivered by Community and Regulatory Services related to Building Standards.
2 5 June 2013
A MEETING of the PLANNING COMMITTEE will be held within the Council Chamber, Greenfield, Alloa, FK10 2AD, on THURSDAY 13 JUNE 2013 at 9.30 am.
ANDREW WYSE Solicitor, Legal Services
Page No.
1. Apologies - -
2. Declaration of Interests - - Members should declare any financial or non-financial interests they have in any item on this agenda, identifying the relevant agenda item and the nature of their interest in accordance with the Councillors’ Code of Conduct. A Declaration of Interest form should be completed and passed to the Committee Officer.
3. Confirm Minutes of Meeting held on 11 April 2013 07 (Copy herewith)
4. Planning Application to form additional car parking and erect 13 Timber fence (partially retrospective) at the Woodsman, Woods Caravan Park, Fishcross (Ref. No.13/00015/FULL) - supplementary report by the Principal Planner (Copy herewith)
5. Planning Application Extension to Existing Windfarm, 31 consisting 6 no. turbines, wind monitoring mast, switchgear building, temporary construction compounds and ancillary work at Rhodders Wind Farm, West of Burnfoot Hill, North of Tillicoultry (Ref. No.11/00299/FULL) - report by the Principal Planner (Copy herewith)
Contact Finance and Corporate Services, Clackmannanshire Council, Greenfield, Alloa FK10 2AD Tel 01259 452106/452004 Fax 01259 452230 Email [email protected] www.clacksweb.org.uk
3
4 PLANNING COMMITTEE – MEMBERS
Councillors Wards
Councillor Alastair Campbell (Convenor) 5 Clackmannanshire East CONS
Councillor Graham Watt (Vice Convenor) 3 Clackmannanshire Central LAB
Councillor George Matchett, QPM 1 Clackmannanshire West LAB
Councillor Tina Murphy 1 Clackmannanshire West SNP
Councillor Les Sharp 1 Clackmannanshire West SNP
Councillor Walter McAdam, MBE 2 Clackmannanshire North SNP
Councillor Bobby McGill 2 Clackmannanshire North LAB
Councillor Gary Womersley 3 Clackmannanshire Central SNP
Councillor Kenneth Earle 4 Clackmannanshire South LAB
Councillor Ellen Forson 4 Clackmannanshire South SNP
5
6 THIS PAPER RELATES TO ITEM 03 ON THE AGENDA
MINUTE OF MEETING of the PLANNING COMMITTEE held within the Council Chamber, Greenfield, Alloa, FK10 2AD, on THURSDAY 11 APRIL 2013 at 9.30 am.
PRESENT
Councillor Alastair Campbell, Convenor (In the Chair) Councillor Graham Watt, Vice Convenor Councillor Janet Cadenhead (S)* Councillor Ellen Forson Councillor George Matchett, QPM Councillor Bobby McGill Councillor Tina Murphy Councillor Les Sharp Councillor Gary Womersley
IN ATTENDANCE
Julie Hamilton, Development Services Manager Grant Baxter, Principal Planner Graeme Finlay, Principal Planner Niall Urquhart, Team Leader (Sustainability) Andrew Wyse, Solicitor, Clerk to the Committee
Councillor Derek Stewart, Ward 3 Clackmannanshire Central (Agenda Item 7)
PLA037 APOLOGIES
Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Kenneth Earle and Councillor Walter McAdam, MBE. *Councillor Janet Cadenhead attended as substitute for Councillor Earle.
In terms of Standing Order 11.4, the Convenor rearranged the agenda to take agenda item 7 as the first item of business following confirmation of the minutes to accommodate members of the public and the local member in attendance for item 7.
PLA038 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
None.
PLA039 MINUTES OF MEETING: PLANNING COMMITTEE 7 FEBRUARY 2013
The minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on 7 February 2013 were submitted for approval.
Moved by Councillor Graham Watt. Seconded by Councillor Tina Murphy.
7 Decision
The minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on 7 February 2013 were agreed as a correct record of the proceedings and were signed by the Vice Convenor.
PLA040 PLANNING APPLICATION
Formation of Additional Car Parking and Erection of Timber Fence (Partly Retrospective) at the Woodsman, The Woods Caravan Park, Fishcross (Ref. 13/00015/FULL)
A report of handling on a planning application by Hillfoot Homes Ltd for works to create additional parking areas and the erection of a boundary fence to service the Woodsman restaurant at the Woods Caravan Park, Fishcross, was submitted by the Principal Planner. The application was partly retrospective since the applicant has already formed some of the areas for parking.
The report described the proposal, considered the objections from 4 neighbouring residents and the advice from consultees and any policy issues associated with the development.
The application comprises a local development which would normally be determined under the Council's Scheme of Delegation by the appointed officer, however, a motion was approved by Council at its meeting on 14 March 2013 for the application to be determined by the Planning Committee.
The Committee heard representation from :
(1) Mr George Brown, Director, Blackbear Enterprises (Scotland) Ltd (The Woodsman Restaurant) - In support of the application (2) Mr David Sherrard, 1 Diverswell Farm, Fishcross - Objector (3) Councillor Derek Stewart, Local Member (Ward 3 Clackmannanshire Central)
Motion
That the Committee approves the application subject to the terms and conditions set out in the report.
Moved by Councillor Alastair Campbell. Seconded by Councillor George Matchett, QPM.
Amendment
That the application be deferred to a future meeting of the Planning Committee to seek submission of a plan to establish access and parking arrangements to the reasonable satisfaction of all parties and that officers facilitate discussion between the applicant and the objectors with a view to achieving a solution to the current parking issues.
Moved by Councillor Les Sharp. Seconded by Councillor Tina Murphy.
Voting
For the motion 2 votes
For the amendment 7 votes Against 2 votes
Not voting 0 abstentions
The amendment was carried by 7 votes to 2.
8 Decision
Accordingly, the Committee agreed that the application be deferred to a future meeting of the Planning Committee to seek submission of a plan to establish access and parking arrangements to the reasonable satisfaction of all parties and that officers facilitate discussion between the applicant and the objectors with a view to achieving a solution to the current parking issues.
Action Head of Community and Regulatory Services
PLA041 PLANNING APPLICATION
Development of Land for the Erection of a Primary School with Nursery (Class 10) with associated playground, ancillary buildings, access, parking and provision of multi use games area with sports pitch at Redwell Playing Fields, Stirling Road, Alloa (Ref. 13/00029/FULL)
A report of handling on a planning application by Clackmannanshire Council to develop a primary school and nursery with associated playground and sports facilities to replace the existing Claremont and St John's Primary Schools was submitted by the Principal Planner. The report described the planning policy issues, advice from consultees and the representation from one objector.
The application comprises a Major Development and there has been a comprehensive pre- application publicity and consultation exercise together with consultation following the submission of the application.
Motion
That the Committee approves the application subject to conditions and reasons set out in the report.
Moved by Councillor Ellen Forson. Seconded by Councillor Janet Cadenhead.
Decision
The Committee agreed unanimously to approve the application subject to the conditions and reasons set out in the report.
Action Head of Community and Regulatory Services
PLA042 PLANNING APPLICATION
Alterations and Change of Use of Public Open Space to form extended office car park, South of Greenside Cemetery, Alloa (Ref. 13/00040/FULL)
A report of handling on a planning application by Clackmannanshire Council to form an extended car park on land to the south of Greenside Cemetery to serve the offices at Kilncraigs was submitted by the Principal Planner. The report described the relevant planning policies in the Development Plan, consultation comments and the publicity undertaken.
As the applicant is the Council and it owns the site, the application cannot be determined by appointed officers under the Scheme of Delegation.
9 Motion
That the Committee approves the application subject to conditions and reasons set out in the report.
Moved by Councillor Alastair Campbell. Seconded by Councillor Bobby McGill.
Decision
The Committee agreed unanimously to approve the application subject to the conditions and reasons set out in the report.
Action Head of Community and Regulatory Services
PLA043 PLANNING APPLICATION
Erection of 28 No. Houses (Amendment to Planning Permission 06/00386/FULL) at Land to West of The Glen, Coalsnaughton, Clackmannanshire (Ref. 13/00016/FULL)
A report of handling on a planning application for the erection of 28 No. houses (amendment to Planning Permission 06/00386/FULL) at land to the west of The Glen, Coalsnaughton, was submitted by the Principal Planner. The report summarised the application for the proposed development and made a recommendation on the application.
As the Council has an interest in the development as a joint-venture partner with the applicant to provide 28 No. affordable homes on the site through the National Housing Trust (NHT) Initiative the application cannot be determined by appointed officers under the Scheme of Delegation.
Motion
That the Committee approves the application subject to conditions and reasons set out in the report.
Moved by Councillor Alastair Campbell. Seconded by Councillor Bobby McGill.
Decision
The Committee agreed unanimously to approve the application subject to the conditions and reasons set out in the report.
Action Head of Community and Regulatory Services
10 PLA044 PROPOSED CLACKMANNANSHIRE LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
A report which updated the Committee on the progress of the Proposed Clackmannanshire Local Plan was submitted by the Head of Community and Regulatory Services.
The Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006 introduced the requirement on planning authorities to produce a new style of development plans to replace the previous Structure and Local Plans. The Clackmannanshire and Stirling Structure Plan and the Clackmannanshire Local Plan will now be replaced by a single tier Clackmannanshire Local Development Plan (LDP).
The main areas of relevance to the Planning Committee were summarised in paragraphs 3.13-3.17 of the report.
Motion
That Committee agrees the recommendations set out in the report.
Moved by Councillor Alastair Campbell. Seconded by Councillor Gary Womersley.
Decision
Following questions and debate, the Committee agreed to note the progress made on the proposed Local Development Plan and accompanying documents and that a finalised version will be presented to a future meeting of the Council.
ENDS 11.14 am
11
12 THIS PAPER RELATES TO ITEM 04 CLACKMANNANSHIRE COUNCIL ON THE AGENDA
Report to: Planning Committee
Date of Meeting: 13th June 2013
Subject: Planning Application to Form Additional Car Parking and Erect Timber Fence (Partially Retrospective) at The Woodsman, Woods Caravan Park, Fishcross (Ref No 13/00015/FULL) - Supplementary Report
Report by: Keith Johnstone, Principal Planner
1.0 Purpose
1.1. This report provides supplementary information in accordance with the Planning Committee decision on 11th April 2013 to DEFER a decision on this application for planning permission. It provides a summary of the actions and outcomes in pursuance of that Committee decision.
2.0 Recommendations
2.1. It is recommended that the amended plan showing alternative access and parking arrangements is APPROVED, subject to the same conditions and reasons set out in paragraph 2.1 of the report to Planning Committee on 11th April 2013 (Appendix 1)
3.0 Background to the Proposals
3.1. Development Services received a planning application to provide additional and amended car parking at the Woodsman Restaurant at the Woods Caravan Park in Fishcross. The planning considerations were presented in a report to the Planning Committee on 11th April 2013 (Appendix 1) which recommended that the application be approved subject to three conditions.
3.2. The Planning Committee decided to defer a decision on this application to:
• seek the submission of a plan to establish access and parking arrangements to the reasonable satisfaction of all parties; and
• for officers to facilitate discussion between the applicant and the objectors with a view to achieving a solution to the current parking issues
3.3. Following the committee meeting, officers proceeded to facilitate the discussion, and this productive meeting between the applicant and the
13 objectors' representative then informed the submission of an amended plan for access and parking arrangements. The plan is available to view on the electronic file; the key changes to the proposal comprise:
• The relocation of a two commercial wheeled bin enclosure adjacent to the restaurant
• prescribing a minimum depth of 14 metres for the car park west of the restaurant
• measures to prevent car parking between the restaurant and the access to Diverswell Farm houses
• an electric entry barrier to Diverswell Farm houses (not provided by the applicant)
3.4 Unfortunately, and for the reasons outlined below, despite the fact that the meeting offered the opportunity for the applicant to listen to and respond to neighbours' concerns, it did not achieve a solution to the parking issues identified by objectors.
4.0 Consultation
4.1. No further consultation took place on the planning application.
5.0 Representations
5.1 Following the meeting between the applicant and objectors' representative, and following receipt of the amended site plan, officers re-notified all neighbours, providing the opportunity to make further representations. Additional representations have been submitted by:
Stuart Wilson, 2 Diverswell Farm, Fishcross
D W Sherrard, 1 Diverswell Farm, FIshcross
These submissions are available to view on the electronic file, and in summary, while they acknowledge some changes to address resident's concerns, they largely focus on re-stating the fundamental objections summarised in the original report, and therefore conclude that the proposal should not be supported. In particular, they regret the applicant's decision not to form an enlarged car park between the caravan park reception building and the restaurant, by moving the warden's caravan and compound.
5.2 The committee decision on 11th April sought a plan which would involve access and parking arrangements to the reasonable satisfaction of all parties. The evidence would indicate that at least two of the objectors are not satisfied with the amended proposals.
6.0 Development Plan Position
6.1 The Development Plan position remains unchanged from that described in Section 6 of the previous report.
14 7.0 Other Material Considerations
7.1 The material change in circumstances arising from the committee decision are:
• The changes to the site plan described in paragraph 3.3 above
• Four representations were submitted on the original application; two submissions received in reply to the amended proposals. It is unclear whether the remaining two parties have any views on the proposals.
7.2 The amended plan includes a proposal to provide a rural type footpath on the east side of the public road, providing a safe route for visitors and residents to walk from the caravan site to the Devon Way past Sauchie Tower. This is not part of the current application, and is in fact a requirement of an earlier consent to extend the caravan park.
7.3 The Service has taken account of the earlier committee decision, the resultant meeting between the applicant and objectors' representative, the amended plan, the further representations and the material considerations. While we note that there is no agreed solution to the issues identified by Members, we continue to recommend that the (amended) proposals are approved.
8.0 Sustainability Implications
8.1 None
9.0 Resource Implications
9.1 Financial Details
9.2 The full financial implications of the recommendations are set out in the report. This includes a reference to full life cycle costs where appropriate. Yes ;
9.3 Finance have been consulted and have agreed the financial implications as set out in the report. Yes
10.0 Exempt Reports
10.1 Is this report exempt? Yes (please detail the reasons for exemption below) No ;
11.0 Declarations
11.1 The recommendations contained within this report support or implement our Corporate Priorities and Council Policies.
(1) Our Priorities (Please double click on the check box ;)
15 The area has a positive image and attracts people and businesses ; Our communities are more cohesive and inclusive People are better skilled, trained and ready for learning and employment Our communities are safer Vulnerable people and families are supported Substance misuse and its effects are reduced Health is improving and health inequalities are reducing The environment is protected and enhanced for all ; The Council is effective, efficient and recognised for excellence
(2) Council Policies (Please detail)
Clackmannanshire Local Plan policies as described in Section 6.0 of Appendix 1
12.0 Equalities Impact
12.1 Have you undertaken the required equalities impact assessment to ensure that no groups are adversely affected by the recommendations? Yes No ;
13.0 Legality
13.1 It has been confirmed that in adopting the recommendations contained in this report, the Council is acting within its legal powers. Yes ;
14.0 Appendices
14.1 Please list any appendices attached to this report. If there are no appendices, please state "none".
Report to Planning Committee of 11th April 2013
11.0 Background Papers
11.1 Have you used other documents to compile your report? (All documents must be kept available by the author for public inspection for four years from the date of meeting at which the report is considered) Yes (please list the documents below) No
Clackmannanshire Local Plan
Author(s)
NAME DESIGNATION TEL NO / EXTENSION
Keith Johnstone Principal Planner 2614
16 Approved by
NAME DESIGNATION SIGNATURE
Ian Duguid Development Quality Team Leader
Julie Hamilton Development Services Manager
17
18 289400 289500 289600
Caravan Park Diverswell
Farm 695800 695800
22.3m Spreads 4 1
Sauchie Tower
DW
DW 28.4m 695700 695700
30.9m 695600 695600
289400 289500 289600
13/00015/FULL - The Woods Caravan Park, Fishcross Formation of Additional Car Parking And Use Of Ground For Staff Parking, Erection of New Timber Fence And Siting Of Refuse Bins at The Woodsman
Services to Communities Ward: Clackmannanshire Central OS Grid Ref: NS 89 96 NW & NS 89 96 NE Kilncraigs 0 10 20 30 40 Greenside Street Date: Meters Alloa 04-Jun-2013 Scale: 1:1,250 FK10 1EB Reproduced by permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of HMSO. © Crown copyright and database right 2013. Tel: 01259 450 000 Fax: 01259 727 452 All rights reserved. Ordnance Survey Licence number 100020783. 19 [email protected]
20 APPENDIX 1
THIS PAPER RELATES TO ITEM 07 CLACKMANNANSHIRE COUNCIL ON THE AGENDA
Report to: Planning Committee
Date of Meeting: 11th April 2013
Subject: Formation Of Additional Car Parking and Erection of Timber Fence (Partly Retrospective) at The Woodsman, The Woods Caravan Park, Fishcross (Ref No 13/00015/FULL)
Report by: Keith Johnstone, Principal Planner
5.0 Purpose
5.1. This is a report of handling on a planning application by Hillfoot Homes Ltd for works to create additional parking areas and the erection of a boundary fence to service the Woodsman restaurant at the Woods Caravan Park, Fishcross. The application is partly retrospective since the applicant has already formed some of the areas for parking.
5.2. The report describes the proposal, considers the objections from 4 neighbouring residents and the advice from consultees and any policy issues associated with the development. The Service concludes that although part of application is retrospective the additional parking would; accord with Development Plan policy; have a positive effect on meeting and managing the parking demand that has arisen since the restaurant has opened; and would not result in an unacceptable impact on the existing levels of amenity or safety enjoyed by neighbours. Having had full regard to the issues raised by the neighbours, it is concluded that there are no other material considerations that would outweigh the Development Plan position and justify withholding permission. The application is therefore recommended for approval, subject to the proposed conditions.
5.3. The application comprises a local development which would normally be determined under the Council's Scheme of Delegation by the Appointed Officer. However, a motion was approved by Council at its meeting on 14th March for the application to be determined by the Planning Committee.
6.0 Recommendation
6.1. It is recommended that the application is APPROVED subject to the following conditions:
21 1. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans and other details submitted and approved as part of this planning permission, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Council, as planning authority.
2. Prior to the commencement of any works to form the staff parking area and associated access as annotated on the approved Site Plan, the following details shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Council, as planning authority;
(a) a landscaping specification for any new planting to screen this area from neighbouring properties, including along the west boundary as annotated on the approved Site Plan. This shall include details of plant species, sizes, arrangements for establishment and the timescales for implementation.
(b) the arrangements to identify the location and number of trees required to be removed to form the access to the staff parking area. These details shall be approved in writing by the Council, as planning authority before any trees are removed.
Thereafter, the approved details shall be completed prior to the staff parking area coming into use.
3. Before any further works take place on site to implement this permission, the following details shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Council, as planning authority;
(a) a specification for the means of enclosure to delineate and screen the bin storage area for the restaurant from the bin storage area which would serve the houses at Diverswell Farm and a scaled plan showing the proposed location where the waste bins serving the restaurant will be presented for collection.
(b) the design and location of any proposed external lighting to illuminate the parking areas. These shall be suitably shielded to minimise the effect of glare on neighbouring residential properties.
(c) a scaled plan showing amended proposals for the deletion of the delivery bay (Area I) and parking area immediately to the east of the restaurant building shown on the revised Site Plan received on 19th March 2013, and details of measures to define the existing delivery parking space from customer parking.
(d) a scaled plan showing the revised boundaries and layout of the car parking area to the west of the restaurant (Area F as annotated on the approved Site Plan) which shall be increased in width to accommodate two rows of right angled parking spaces.
(e) details of the proposed measures to protect any existing trees from damage for the duration of the construction work.
(f) details of all signage to be displayed relating to the restaurant.
(g) the timescales for implementation and completion of the above details.
22 Thereafter, the development shall be implemented and completed in accordance with the approved details.
Reasons for Conditions
1. To ensure that the works comply with the terms of this planning permission.
2. To consider these details yet to be submitted in the interests of road safety and the amenity of neighbours.
3. To consider these details yet to be submitted in the interests of road safety and residential amenity.
6.2. Reasons for the Decision
1. The proposal would accord with the objectives of the Clackmannanshire Local Plan.
2. The proposed development will not result in any significant adverse impact on the amenity or road safety of neighbouring residents or the area as a whole.
3. The issues raised by the objectors could be satisfactorily addressed subject to the proposed conditions or would not justify withholding permission for the works.
4. The proposed works to increase the number of parking spaces available or rationalise the existing parking areas would respond to the impacts from overspill parking generated by customers using the restaurant since it came into use, by improving the accessibility and length of spaces within the existing approved parking area adjacent to the access to the houses at Diverswell Farm and by providing additional customer parking spaces which would be accessed separately from the access to the houses at Diverswell Farm. This would satisfactorily address the potential impacts on amenity and road safety and help to support the employment opportunities generated by this business.
6.3. Plans Relating to the Decision
1. Location Plan
2. Existing Site Plan
3. Site Plan
7.0 Background to the Proposals
7.1. The site comprises The Woodsman restaurant which forms part of The Woods Caravan Park near Fishcross. The application seeks permission, partly in retrospect, for works to form additional carparking spaces or alter existing parking spaces on land adjacent to the restaurant. The works would comprise
23 • The creation of customer parking on areas to the west and south of the restaurant building to accommodate up to 16 cars (some of the parking spaces have already been created).
• The creation of a staff parking area to the north of the restaurant. This would be accessed from a new link from the access which also serves Diverswell Farm immediately to the north of the building. Three trees would have to be removed to form the access.
• An increase in the length and width of the existing approved parking area to the east of private access road to the houses at Diverswell Farm to help reduce the risk of parked vehicles encroaching onto the access road.
• The revised Site Plan shows the formation of a delivery bay immediately to the east of the restaurant building and the proposed use of the approved delivery bay for customer parking. However, the applicant has agreed to delete these changes from the proposals.
• The Site Plan also shows the relocation of the bin storage area for the restaurant which would be located to the north of the proposed staff parking area adjacent to the neighbours` garage building. The applicant has stated that the bins would be wheeled to the front of the restaurant for collection.
7.2. The application was submitted following an enforcement investigation by the Service into the unauthorised formation of the parking spaces to the west of the building (Other complaints have been received in the past in relation to the caravan site, including a diesel generator, earthworks and hours of construction. These have been actioned accordingly). The recent complaints referred to;
• concern about possible loss of amenity due to noise and light.
• parking for the restaurant impeding access to Diverswell Farm.
• damage to the private shared access road by restaurant customers vehicles and
• customers entering Diverswell Farm to turn or park.
3.3 There have been a number of previous planning applications relating to the Woods Caravan Park. Planning permission for the restaurant was granted in December 2008 (ref No 08/00320/FULL). The approved plan included 8 parking spaces and a delivery parking bay and a condition was attached to monitor parking demand.
8.0 Consultations
8.1. Roads and Transportation advise that they consider that there are no access traffic capacity issues associated with the proposed additional parking provision. They highlight that parking provision should accord with the Council's parking maxima standards and they have checked and are satisfied
24 that the visibility splays at the junction with the C110 complies with the standards specified in the previous permission. Comment - The advice from Roads confirms that they are satisfied that the development would not raise any significant road safety issues. The number of spaces would be below the parking maxima standards. They have checked the junction in response to the concerns raised in the objections and are satisfied that the appropriate visibility splays have been maintained.
8.2. Environmental Health was consulted and have advised verbally that they have no objection in principle to the application.
9.0 Representations
9.1. Following the publicity of the application, comprising the notification of 4 neighbouring residents and the placing of an advertisement in the Alloa Advertiser for neighbour notification purposes, objections have been received from the following parties;
• Mr Stuart Wilson, 2 Diverswell Farm, Fishcross
• Mrs Audrey Quigley, 4 Diverswell Farm, Fishcross
• Mr Ryan Monteith, 3 Diverswell Farm, Fishcross
• Mr David Sherrard, 1 Diverswell Farm, Fishcross
5.2 The main concerns raised by these parties can be summarised as follows;
(a) the proposed layout, including the revised details, would not address their concerns about the impact of customer parking on access to houses at Diverswell Farm. The proposed works to increase the length of the spaces would still not prevent too many vehicles parking next to the access road or possibly impeding access. Comment - The existing parking area to the east of the access to the houses at Diverswell Farm has the benefit of planning permission and therefore they could not be removed. However, the revised layout has been designed to alleviate the potential conflict between the existing customer parking area and the use of the access to the houses at Diverswell Farm by increasing the size of the existing area to ensure parked vehicles do not encroach onto the road and can manoeuvre more easily. The proposed parking area immediately to the east of the restaurant building will also be deleted to remove parking spaces on either side of the access road. The other additional parking areas would be separate from the access to the houses at Diverswell Farm. It is considered that, subject to the proposed conditions, there would not be sufficient grounds to withhold permission since the proposed works would help improve the existing parking concerns expressed by neighbours.
(b) no further spaces should be provided since the restaurant development was approved on the understanding that it would serve visitors to the existing caravan park. Providing spaces would encourage other visitors to use the facility. Furthermore, the popularity of the restaurant to visitors from outwith the caravan park is at odds with the applicant's original support and justification for the development which was based on serving visitors to the
25 caravan park. This could indicate that the previous reasons were given to circumvent the planning guidelines or that the business was not viable without this trade. Comment - at the time of the original application, the applicant had stated that the restaurant was intended to serve mainly, but not exclusively, visitors to the caravan park. This was consistent with the Development Plan policies relating to tourism development. The restaurant opened in December and it will only be evident after the main caravan park season whether the current numbers will be maintained as custom grows from visitors to the park. This also does not change the fact that the restaurant has permission and the current proposals are designed to reduce the potential impact of parking demand on neighbouring residents and the surrounding area. The original permission included a condition which required the developer to monitor parking demand and if necessary bring forward measures to address any overspill parking. The application effectively has brought forward this process and the evidence to date does demonstrate that the approved parking provision is inadequate to meet the demand. It is therefore considered that the principle of providing additional spaces is acceptable and consistent with the terms of the original permission.
(c) parking is not enforced by the restaurant and cars impede access on the track or enter Diverswell Farm. Comment - the enforcement of parking or access by customers is not regulated by the planning permission for the restaurant and it is considered that this could not be effectively regulated using planning legislation. The developer has displayed a sign at the entrance to Diverswell Farm to inform drivers that it is private property. It is considered that the proposed works would have a positive effect on the current impacts associated with parking associated with the approved development. It should be noted that if the works do not proceed the use of the restaurant would continue to remain lawful based on the original layout.
(d) the applicant would have been aware of the need for permission to form the carpark areas and his approach is disingenuous. The applicant has also disregarded planning controls on a number of occasions and it appears that the Planning Service has not taken action, possibly as the applicant was once employed by the Council. Comment - the Service has carried out a number of enforcement enquiries on this site. These did not result in any formal enforcement action being taken but that was only after the Service was satisfied that the breach had been satisfactorily remedied in accordance with the Council's Enforcement Strategy as it applies to small businesses. For the record, the identity of the applicant or any previous links with the Council was not a factor in the decision making process.
(e) concern about the works creating increased noise or light pollution in the evening. Comment - while the proposed works would provide additional parking spaces, it is not considered that their use would have an unacceptable adverse impact on the existing amenity enjoyed by residents. Although some trees would be removed to accommodate some of the proposed works, the proposed layout would still retain the boundary planting and bunding which provides a screen between the site and the houses and screen planting will be provided to enclose the proposed staff parking area. The access to this area has also been revised by the applicant so that access would not be taken from Diverswell Farm and the planting which screens this area from Diverswell Farm would be retained.
26 (f) the proposed bin store area next to the staff parking area would adversely affect the amenity of neighbours. The Service required the applicant to relocate a waste container in this location previously. Comment - the proposed bin storage area would not be accessible from Diverswell Farm and would be screened unlike the previous situation highlighted. The applicant has stated that the bins would be collected from the front of their restaurant building. It is not considered that the proposed arrangements would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of neighbours.
(g) the development would place an increased burden on residents for the cost of maintaining the shared access road to Diverswell Farm. Comment - this is a matter between the parties which have an interest in the private road.
10.0 Development Plan Position
6.1 The site comprises brownfield land which is located within countryside as defined in the adopted Clackmannanshire Local Plan.
6.2 The development relates to an existing development and the most relevant Development Plan policy guidance is contained in the in the following policies:
• EN11 - the Policy states that new development should make a positive contribution to its surroundings through its design and finishes and landscaping. Comment - The proposed works would not have any significant visual or landscape impact from outwith the site and the proposed removal of some trees would not result in an unacceptable impacts. Additional planting will also be carried out to create boundary screening. It is considered that the development would not be contrary to this Policy.
• EN15 - the Policy states that any environmental protection matter has been evaluated and considered as part of the application process. Comment - we are satisfied that the proposed parking areas would not result in any unacceptable impacts on the existing standards of amenity enjoyed by neighbouring residents. The Policy has been complied with.
• EN18 - the Policy contains a number of criteria which development should satisfy. Those relevant to the application comprise; the design is compatible with the character of the surrounding area; the proposal would not result in adverse impacts on road safety; and there would be no harm to the amenity of adjacent landusers. Comment - the proposed development would satisfactorily meet these criteria. Roads have confirmed that they have no objection to the principle of the development and it would not raise any road safety issues on the C110. The proposed parking provision would not adversely affect the current levels of road or pedestrian safety within the site and should ensure the parking demand could be more effectively managed than retaining the layout as originally approved. Overall, we remain satisfied that the development would not significantly detract from the existing standard of amenity enjoyed by neighbours. On balance, the application would accord with this Policy.
27 • JOB12 - the Policy states that there will be a presumption in favour of proposals to expand or enhance existing visitor facilities where these would safeguard the natural and built environment. Comment - the Policy would provide support for the development. The conditions attached to the permission for the restaurant did recognise the need to review the level of parking provision and therefore the works would not directly conflict with the terms of the original permission.
• Policy INF4 - the Policy states that development should normally comply with the relevant Development Roads Guidelines and Specification. Comment - the proposed number of spaces would accord with the Council's parking standards and Roads have not raised any objection to the application. The Policy has been complied with.
6.3 The application accords with the relevant Development Plan policies and is considered to comply with the Development Plan.
7.0 Other Material Considerations
7.1 The objections from the 4 neighbouring residents have been considered and addressed in Section 5.0 and 6.0 above. It is concluded that the issues raised would not justify withholding permission. It is considered that the works would help to address the current impacts associated with overspill parking from the restaurant use and although partly retrospective, on balance, these would not result in any significant adverse impacts on the existing levels of amenity or road safety associated with the operation of the restaurant as approved by permission reference 08/00320/FULL. The issues raised about previous complaints or breaches of planning control related to the applicant should not prejudice the determination of the current application which has to be determined on its own planning merits. That is not to acknowledge that there has been unauthorised works which has impacted on the neighbours, albeit these have been addressed in response to the complaints.
7.2 Roads have not objected to the proposals. The proposed conditions would help ensure any impacts could be satisfactorily mitigated. It is concluded that there are no other material considerations which would outweigh the Development Plan support for the proposals or justify withholding permission.
8.0 Sustainability Implications
8.1 None.
9.0 Resource Implications
9.1 Financial Details
9.2 The full financial implications of the recommendations are set out in the report. This includes a reference to full life cycle costs where appropriate. Yes
9.3 Finance have been consulted and have agreed the financial implications as set out in the report. Yes
28
10.0 Exempt Reports
10.1 Is this report exempt? Yes (please detail the reasons for exemption below) No ;
110 Declarations
The recommendations contained within this report support or implement our Corporate Priorities and Council Policies.
(1) Our Priorities (Please double click on the check box ;)
The area has a positive image and attracts people and businesses ; Our communities are more cohesive and inclusive People are better skilled, trained and ready for learning and employment Our communities are safer Vulnerable people and families are supported Substance misuse and its effects are reduced Health is improving and health inequalities are reducing The environment is protected and enhanced for all ; The Council is effective, efficient and recognised for excellence
(2) Council Policies (Please detail)
None
12.0 Equalities Impact
12.1 Have you undertaken the required equalities impact assessment to ensure that no groups are adversely affected by the recommendations? Yes No ;
13.0 Legality
13.1 It has been confirmed that in adopting the recommendations contained in this report, the Council is acting within its legal powers. Yes ;
14.0 Appendices
14.1 Please list any appendices attached to this report. If there are no appendices, please state "none".
None
29
15.0 Background Papers
15.1 Have you used other documents to compile your report? (All documents must be kept available by the author for public inspection for four years from the date of meeting at which the report is considered) Yes ; (please list the documents below) No
Clackmannanshire Local Plan
Author(s)
NAME DESIGNATION TEL NO / EXTENSION
Keith Johnstone Principal Planner 2614
Approved by
NAME DESIGNATION SIGNATURE
Julie Hamilton Development Services Manager
John Gillespie Head of Community And Regulatory
30 THIS PAPER RELATES TO ITEM 05 CLACKMANNANSHIRE COUNCIL ON THE AGENDA
Report to: Planning Committee
Date of Meeting: 13th June 2013
Subject: Extension to Existing Windfarm, Comprising 6 No. Turbines, Wind Monitoring Mast, Switchgear Building, Temporary Construction Compounds and Ancilliary Work - at Rhodders Wind Farm, West of Burnfoot Hill, North of Tillicoultry (Ref No 11/00299/FULL)
Report by: Keith Johnstone, Principal Planner
1.0 Purpose
1.1. This is a report of handling on the above planning application which seeks to extend the existing Burnfoot Hill Windfarm. The report; summarises the application and the associated Environmental Statement produced as part of the Environmental Impact Assessment undertaken by the applicant; examines the key planning issues, relevant Development Plan policies and national policy advice; addresses the consultation responses and representations from third parties and; makes a recommendation on the application to Members.
1.2. The application comprises a local development which would normally be determined under the Council's Scheme of Delegation by the Appointed Officer. However, a motion was approved by Council at its meeting on 20th December 2012 for the application to be determined by the Planning Committee.
2.0 Recommendations
2.1. It is recommended that, subject to the prior conclusion of an obligation under Section 75 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 related to the mitigation measures comprising the contribution of monies to the Recreational Enhancement Fund and future management of the land subject to the Habitat Enhancement Plan, the application is APPROVED with the conditions contained in Appendix 1.
2.2. Reasons for Decision
1. Having reviewed the information, including the Environmental Impact Assessment, relating to the potential impacts of the development, it is concluded that the proposals would accord with the Clackmannanshire Development Plan.
31 2. Subject to the proposed conditions and mitigation measures set out in the application documents, the concerns and issues raised by third parties and consultees could be adequately addressed or would not result in unacceptable impacts that would justify withholding permission.
3. The development would make a valuable contribution towards the Government's target for renewable electricity production to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
4. It is concluded that there are no other material considerations which would outweigh the Development Plan support for the development and justify withholding permission.
2.3 Plans Relating to the Decision
1. Location Plan 2. Site Layout Plan - WPENGd3469 4. Proposed Turbine Elevations 5. Typical Section Through Gravity Foundation 6. Proposed Hardstanding Details 7. Proposed Wind Monitoring mast 8. Proposed Building Elevations 9. Typical Grid Connection Ducting Sections
3.0 Background to the Proposals
3.1. In November 2011, the applicant submitted an application accompanied by an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for an extension to the existing windfarm at Burnfoot Hill (BFH) comprising 9 turbines together with an anemometry mast, electrical control building and access tracks and hardstandings. This application was publicised and consultations were carried out, and representations both for and against the proposal were received. Following our assessment, the Service forwarded comments to the applicant on the planning merits of the proposal.
3.2. In March 2013, following consideration of our assessment and the responses made, the applicant chose to submit amended proposals with Supplementary Environmental Information (SEI) which comprised a reduction in the number of turbines from 9 to 6 involving the deletion of the three westernmost turbines (T17, 19 and 21). Turbine 20 was also relocated approximately 110 metres to the south east to reduce the spacing with the remaining turbines. Other key elements of the proposal comprised:
• An electrical control building and anemometry mast
• The formation of 2.8km of access tracks to connect the turbines with the existing windfarm
• A temporary construction compound on one of the existing hardstandings
32 • The turbines would be the same size as the existing ones which are 60m in height to hub height, 3 blades measuring 42 metres in length giving a maximum height from ground to blade tip of 102 metres. The output of each turbine would be 2 Megawatts (MW) giving a combined installed capacity of 12MW. The turbine colour would be light grey to match the existing.
• The development would be connected to the national grid following the same route as the existing BFH windfarm. The underground cabling would be laid in a trench until it reaches the existing track to the south west of Ben Buck where it would utilise existing ducting under the track to reach the switchgear building at Rhodders Farm, Alva.
3.3. The amended proposals were subject to the same publicity and consultation procedures. Third parties who had submitted representations were notified of the changes and the opportunity to make further comments. The SEI included analysis of the following issues:
• Landscape and Visual Impact Analysis - Individual and Cumulative
• Land Use and Recreational Access
• Ornithology and Non Avian Ecology
• Water and Soils
• Noise
3.4 A temporary borrow pit to provide construction aggregates would be created by extending the former borrow pit which served the existing windfarm on the north side of Burnfoot Hill. This is the subject of a separate application (Ref 13/00097/FULL) which is awaiting a decision.
3.5 The existing BFH windfarm comprises 13 turbines (Ref 06/00121/FULL) with an installed capacity of 26MW. The windfarm began generating renewable electricity in 2010.
Location
3.6 The site is located to the west of the existing BFH windfarm and to the north of Ben Buck, largely on the west side of the Greenhorn Burn (see Plan 1). In terms of distances, the development, measured from the nearest turbine, would be:
• 5km north of Tillicoultry and Alva and 5km south of Blackford
• 1.6km to the north of the summit of Ben Cleuch and 0.9km from the summit of Ben Buck
• 1.9km to the south west of Backhills Farm house which is the nearest residential property, although the owner of the property has a financial interest in the development. The next nearest houses are approximately 3.5 km away to the north.
33 3.7 The site is located adjacent to the administrative boundary with Perth and Kinross Council. Vehicular access is within Perth and Kinross Council's area.
3.8 The site comprises an area of upland moor used for grazing which lies to the north of Ben Cleuch (721m AOD) and Ben Buck (679m AOD). The topography is the site varies between approximately 470m-590m AOD.
Access
3.9 Access to the site would be taken from the A823 in Glendevon and along the private road which serves the operational BFH windfarm. The existing access track would be extended to the south of the current control building to serve the proposed turbines. The large turbine components would travel via the A9 to the A823 as was the case for the current windfarm.
Renewable Energy Production
3.10 The maximum installed capacity would be 12MW. The predicted site output per year would be approximately 28487 megawatt hours which would equate to the amount of electricity to meet the needs of 6670 households. This is about 29% of the households in Clackmannanshire. The applicant has predicted that the development would avoid 17291 tonnes of CO2 emissions per year being emitted to the atmosphere compared with production by fossil fuel power stations. The construction phase would result in CO2 emissions, including due to the disturbance of peat, but the EIA estimates that the amount generated would be offset by the savings in carbon free energy production within 3 years of production commencing.
Wind Energy Development in the Ochils
3.11 There are a number of other applications within the Ochil Hills which may be relevant to the assessment of the application. These are summarised in the table below and their locations are identified on Plan 2 attached to this report. They all lie within Perth and Kinross Council's area apart from BFH Windfarm. A more detailed examination of other windfarms which may have a cumulative impact is contained in the EIA and SEI. The applicant has recently obtained permission to extend BFH windfarm to the north with 2 turbines (Ref 11/01930/FLL) and has lodged an appeal against non-determination for a windfarm of 7 turbines on Frandy Hill which is located about 1km to the east (Ref 11/01952/FLL). The appeal has still to be determined by Scottish Ministers.
Distance No of from Installed Name Planning Status Turbines Application Capacity Site (km)
Burnfoot Hill 13 0.3 26MW Operational
Burnfoot Hill 2 1 4MW Approved Extension
34 At Appeal to Scottish Frandy Hill 7 2.7 14MW Ministers
Greenknowes 18 8.9 36MW Operational
Lochelbank 12 23 9.6MW Operational
Glenhead, Application Under 2 5.5 0.45MW Glendevon Consideration
4.0 Consultations
4.1. A large number of bodies or groups have been consulted on the application and EIA. A summary of their responses to the application is contained in Appendix 2.
5.0 Representations
5.1 The application has been the subject of extensive publicity. This has included:
• Prior to the submission of the original application, the applicant held 2 public exhibitions at Tillicoultry and Blackford and distributed over 5,700 newsletters to all homes within 6km of the site. They consulted with local community councils and the Council. This is summarised in a PAC Report which has been included as part of the application.
• Following submission of the application, the applicant held 2 further public consultations in Tillicoultry and Blackford and distributed a further newsletter to all homes within 6km of the site.
• Both the original and amended proposals were publicised in the Alloa Advertiser and the Edinburgh Gazette in accordance with the relevant regulations. Copies of the documents were made available in Council premises in Tillicoultry and in Blackford.
• Consultees and all the third parties who had made representations on the original proposal were notified by the Service of the amended proposal
5.2 The publicity has resulted in:
• A total of 51 letters of objection to the application
• 10 parties responded to the publicity of the amended application to confirm their continued objection to the development
• The residency of the objectors were:
- Clackmannanshire - 14
- Perth and Kinross - 20
35 - Elsewhere - 17
• A total of 51 letters of support
• Of this total, 48 were in the form of duplicate letters
• The residency of supporters were:
- Clackmannanshire - 5
- Perth and Kinross - 27
- Elsewhere - 19
5.3 The names of those who have submitted a representation are included in Appendix 3. The issues raised in the representations are addressed in Sections 6.0 and 7.0 of the report but a summary of the issues is provided below:
Objections
• Adverse visual and landscape impacts on the Ochil Hills
• Adverse cumulative visual and landscape impacts with other existing and proposed wind farms
• Adverse impact on bird species, including red grouse
• Adverse impact on Gleneagles Hotel and resort business due to cumulative visual impact
• Impact on tourism economy
• Adversely affect the recreational enjoyment of the Ochils
• Concern over adequacy of mechanism to assess cumulative impact associated with other wind energy proposals in the Ochils
• Detrimental effect on peat habitat
• Inefficient, uneconomic and ineffective technology
• Contrary to local and national planning policy
• A suggested moratorium on further wind farm development in the Ochils until new planning policies to safeguard the Ochils are put in place
• Adverse impact on water environment including groundwater, watercourses and the reservoirs.
• Drip feed of applications for further extensions is a ploy to gain consent. If the original application was for this total number it may have not been approved
36 Supporters
• Valuable contribution to the country's renewable energy targets
• Wind energy is required as part of the measures to tackle climate change. The development would offset CO2 emissions
• The impact would not affect their personal enjoyment or living in or visiting the area
• The wider benefits associated with reducing the impacts from climate change would outweigh the localised visual impacts
6.0 Development Plan Position
6.1 Section 25 and 37(2) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 requires the determination of an application to be made in accordance with the provisions of the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The Development Plan comprises the Clackmannanshire and Stirling Structure Plan (approved in 2002 and altered in 2004 to include strategic guidance on renewable energy developments) and the Clackmannanshire Local Plan (adopted in 2004). These Plans will eventually be replaced by the Clackmannanshire Local Development Plan (LDP). Although a proposed LDP has been prepared, it has still to be approved by the Council.
6.2 It is considered that the determining issues comprise;
a. Does the proposal accord with the Development Plan?
b. If it does not accord, are there any material considerations which would justify approving the development?, or
c. If it does accord, are there any material considerations which would justify withholding permission?
6.3 Before reaching a conclusion on the assessment of the determining issues, the report considers:
• The extent of compliance of the proposal with relevant policies in the Development Plan
• The scope of any other relevant policy guidance and the level of support or otherwise it would have for this proposal
• The key impacts associated with the proposal based on the assessment of relevant policy guidance, the responses from consultees and third parties, the information in the EIA and whether these impacts would be acceptable or could be satisfactorily mitigated
Development Plan Position
6.4 There are a number of individual policies in the Plan which are relevant to the application. The analysis below has also been informed by the assessment of the key impacts contained in Section 7.0 below.
37 (a) Clackmannanshire and Stirling Structure Plan
• Policy SD1 (Key Principles) - Comment: The policy requires an assessment of how the development contributes to the Plan's strategy of "Working Towards Sustainable Development" and identifies a number of principles to help make this judgement. It is concluded from the outcome of the assessment of the application and EIA that the 12MW renewable energy development would make a positive contribution to sustainable development and would on balance satisfy the principles set out in the policy.
• Policy ENV1 (Nature Conservation) - Comment: We are satisfied that, subject to the mitigation requirements, the development would not result in any significant adverse impact on any national or local significant nature conservation interests at the site or the surrounding area. Neither SNH or RSPB object.
• Policy ENV2 (Protected Landscapes) - Comment: The policy restricts development within Areas of Great Landscape Value (AGLV) to that which satisfies Policy ENV3 and does not adversely affect the overall quality of the designated area. The proposal is considered to accord with Policy ENV3. The proposal would extend an existing operational windfarm and careful consideration has been given to how the landscape and visual impacts associated with the extension would impact on the overall quality of the Ochils AGLV. On balance, it is considered that the significance of the scale of the impact of the development and the change to the existing landscape would not unacceptably affect the overall quality of the AGLV having regard to:
a. The change that visitors would experience within the Ochil Hills
b. The limited additional impacts from other parts of the AGLV or in views to the Ochils AGLV from the south, west and east
c. The greatest change and impact to the north and north west would be approximately 8km away and this impact, on its own is not considered to result in an unacceptable impact on the overall quality of the AGLV
• Policy ENV3 (Development in the Countryside) - Comment: The policy restricts the type of development to that dependant on a countryside location. Renewable energy proposals are considered to satisfy this locational test. The policy states that proposals should be suitable for the particular location in terms of function, siting and design and respect features of value to the character of the area. The development of commercial wind turbines would inevitably introduce large man-made structures within a countryside setting which will have a significant landscape and visual impact. The proposal would extend an existing windfarm where turbines form part of the character of the area. We are satisfied that the extension would not unacceptably exacerbate the impacts associated with the existing windfarm.
• ENV6 (The Historic and Built Environment) - Comment: We agree with the conclusions of the EIA and Historic Scotland that the development
38 would not have an unacceptable impact on any sites with built heritage significance. This comprises listed buildings, scheduled monuments, archaeological interests, Conservation Areas or Inventory Garden and Designed Landscapes, including the Inventory sites at Gleneagles, Braco and Drummond Castle.
• ENV9 (Water Resources Management) - Comment: The information submitted with the application and the advice from consultees, including SEPA and Scottish Water demonstrates that water management issues could be satisfactorily managed subject to the proposed planning conditions.
• ENV14 (Renewable Energy) - Comment: The policy provides support for renewable energy developments subject to conforming with other relevant Development Plan policies. The supporting text recognises the role renewable energy production can make in response to climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions but the text highlights that the supportive approach will not be at the expense of the environment. Our assessment concludes that the development would generally be in conformity with other relevant Development Plan policies and that, on balance, the proposed extension would not unacceptably harm the environment.
• ENV16 (Wind Energy) - Comment: This key policy requires proposals to be assessed against the undernoted four key principles:
1. A presumption against development in identified areas for overriding landscape, built or natural heritage reasons. Comment: The development would not fall within or adversely affect any of the "Exclusion Areas" and therefore the presumption against does not apply. The relevant areas comprise The Ochils Escarpment, Green Belt and the Settings of Wallace Monument, Stirling Castle and Sheriffmuir Battlefield.
2. The areas outwith the "Exclusion Areas" should be regarded as an Area of Search for development opportunities. Comment: The site would fall within an Area of Search.
3. Local Plans should further define the "Exclusion Areas" and the relevant constraints within Areas of Search. Comment: The current adopted Clackmannanshire Local Plan has not been updated to reflect this principle. The Local Development Plan will include a Spatial Framework for Wind Energy and it is intended that supplementary planning guidance will be published, which would effectively address this principle. This is referred to in the final bullet point in paragraph 7.7 but it is not expected that the site would fall within an "Exclusion Area". However, given the early stage that preparation of the LDP is at, it is not considered that significant weight can be attributed to this principle.
4. Proposals which would create adverse cumulative effects by reasons of visual impact on amenity or scenic or heritage features will not normally be acceptable. Comment: We have concluded that the scale of these impacts created as part of an enlarged BFH
39 Windfarm would not be sufficiently adverse to be contrary to this part of the policy.
On balance, the proposal would not be contrary to any of the four principles.
(b) Adopted Clackmannanshire Local Plan
• Policy EN1 (Sites of Local Ecological Importance) - Comment: The policy states that development should ensure that any potential negative biodiversity impacts can be satisfactorily mitigated and that appropriate measures are provided to safeguard the integrity of the resource. We are satisfied that, subject to proposed mitigation, the proposal would accord with this policy advice. The advice from SNH, SEPA and the RSPB supports this view.
• Policy EN2 (Landscape and Ecology) - Comment: The policy states that where development lies within an Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV), it should satisfy the following tests:
1. There is an essential requirement for the development; The policy states that renewable energy initiatives fall within the definition.
2. There is a specific need for the development which could not be met in a less sensitive location; Scottish Planning Policy states that it is not for developers to demonstrate that there is a need for the development. The proposal relates to the extension of an existing operational windfarm. During the assessment of the original application (06/00121/FULL), the Service concluded that there was not a more suitable site outwith the designated AGLVs which would accommodate a windfarm development with less visual or landscape impacts.
3. The landscape character and scenic interest would not be adversely affected; The development, by reason of its appearance and scale, would have an adverse effect the character of the area in those views where the turbines would be visible, usually in combination with existing turbines at Burnfoot Hill. Unlike Policy ENV2 above, the policy does not apply the test to the impact on the overall quality of the AGLV. Consequently, this principle is not satisfied although our conclusion is that the impact would not be sufficiently detrimental to unacceptably affect the character of the AGLV based on the design and location of the proposed turbines.
• Policy EN4 (Water Resources) - Comment: Subject to the proposed conditions, the development would satisfy the requirements of this policy.
• Policy EN6 (Listed Buildings) - Comment: Subject to the proposed conditions, the development would satisfy the requirements of this policy.
40 • Policy EN7 (Archaeological and Historic Sites) - Comment: The proposal would not adversely affect important sites and would accord with this policy.
• Policy EN9 (National Important Gardens and Designed Landscapes) - Comment: The policy states that development will not normally be permitted if it would adversely affect these features. The nearest Inventory site where impacts could occur is Gleneagles which is some 7.5km away. Having regard to the information submitted with the application, the assessment undertaken at site visits and the advice from SNH and Historic Scotland, the proposal would not result in any individual or cumulative adverse impact on the setting of the Inventory site.
• Policy EN11 (Enhancing Environmental Quality) - Comment: The policy states that new developments should positively contribute to its immediate environment through design and materials, safeguarding local amenity and the surrounding natural heritage. Although the overall design and proposed conditions would help mitigate adverse impacts associated with the development (which is recognised by SNH and SEPA), and effectively integrate the development with the existing windfarm, the overall impact would not be positive. This therefore represents an area of policy conflict.
• Policy EN15 ((Planning and Environmental Protection) - Comment: The potential environmental impacts have been evaluated in consultation with the Environmental Health Unit. We are satisfied that no unacceptable impacts should occur.
• Policy EN18 (Development in the Countryside) – Comment: See comments in Policy ENV3 above.
• Policy INF4 (Development Standards) - Comment: The proposal would not create any unacceptable road safety impacts and would accord with this policy.
• INF9 (Renewable Energy Development Interim Policy) - Comment: The policy states that windfarm development will not normally be permitted within the Ochil Hills. The policy pre-dates Structure Plan Policies ENV14 and ENV16 which do not include such a blanket restriction and while the proposal would not comply with this policy, less weight could be attributed to it.
6.5 The above analysis of relevant Development Plan policies concludes that:
• The proposal would, on balance, accord with the Clackmannanshire and Stirling Structure Plan in terms of its support for sustainable developments and its policies relating to renewable development.
• The proposal would accord with most of the relevant policies except for Policy EN2 which relates to AGLVs and INF9. However, Policy INF9 is now outdated and contradicts the requirements of
41 the more recently approved Structure Plan Policy ENV16. In terms of Policy EN2, while the proposal would have a negative impact on landscape character and scenic interest, this would not be sufficient to withhold permission given:
1. The proposal relates to an extension to an existing windfarm
2. The proposal would accord withy SP Policy ENV2 since it would not adversely affect the overall quality of the AGLV.
3. The proposal would extend an existing windfarm located within the AGLV.
• On balance, therefore, the proposal would not be contrary to the Development Plan, subject to the proposed mitigation measures.
7.0 Other Material Considerations
7.1 Having considered the Development Plan position, it is necessary to carefully consider any other material considerations related to the proposed development and whether they would, either individually or collectively, outweigh the Development Plan position and justify refusing planning permission. The key considerations are examined below.
National Policy and Guidance
7.2 There are a number of Government policy statements and guidance which are relevant to the development. These comprise:
• Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) 2010
• National Planning Framework for Scotland 2 (NPF2)
• Specific Online Guidance for Onshore Windfarms (Oct 2012) and Wind Farm Development on Peat Land (June 2011)
• Planning Advice Note (PAN) No 1/2011 - Planning and Noise
• PAN 51 - Planning, Environmental Protection and Regulation
• PAN 58 - Environmental Impact Assessment
• PAN 60 - Planning for Natural Heritage
• 2020 Route Map for Renewable Energy in Scotland - 2012
7.3 The NPF2 highlights the importance of tackling climate change and reducing the reliance on fossil fuels and the consequential changes that will be required to the way energy is produced. The Government states that an increase in the amount of electricity generated from renewable sources is a vital part of the response to climate change.
7.4 The SPP is a statement of Government policy on land use planning and includes guidance on key subject areas including renewable energy and wind
42 energy. It supports the achievement of Government targets on renewable energy production and notes that onshore wind is expected to be the main source of supply as the technology is well developed. Paragraph 187 states that "planning authorities should support the development of windfarms in locations where the technology can operate efficiently and environmental and cumulative impacts can be satisfactorily addressed".
7.5 The advice in the PANs has informed the preparation of the EIA and the responses from relevant consultees. We are satisfied that the application process generally accords with the advice. The Online Guidance for Onshore Windfarms advises that planning authorities, when determining applications, should:
• Ensure that key consultees are involved in the process to help ensure that constraints are overcome where possible
• Draw upon the range of guidance published on issues associated with wind energy, including advice published by SNH
• In relation to cumulative impacts, the impacts are likely to be more pertinent in areas approaching their carrying capacity. For cumulative landscape and visual impacts, the scale and pattern of turbines will be relevant and consideration should be given to the significance of the landscape and the views, proximity and intervisibility and the sensitivity of visual receptors
7.6 The 2012 Route Map confirms the Scottish Government's commitment to the expansion of onshore windfarms to achieve its target of the generation of the equivalent of 100% of demand for electricity from renewable sources by 2020. There is an interim target of 50% by 2015. The planning system should continue to balance environmental sensitivity with the need to make progress with renewable targets. Individual decisions should deliver appropriately designed and sited proposals.
Other Guidance and Advice
7.7 Other relevant guidance includes
• Landscape Study - Windfarm Development in the Ochil Hills and Southern Highland Perthshire, 2004. Comment: It concluded that any commercial windfarm would be inappropriate but if one was approved, it should be limited to one site in the eastern part of the Ochils and not exceed 60 metres in height. The study concluded that the current site is in an area of high visual sensitivity and therefore has a low potential to accommodate a windfarm. The study pre-dates the decisions to approve and build the 3 windfarms located within the Ochils and therefore is considered to be relatively out of date.
• Central Landscape Character Assessment, commissioned by SNH. Comment: The site lies within the "Hills Landscape Character" type. The document recognises that the area may be appropriate for windfarm development due to its characteristics, namely open large scale, gently rounded and uniform. It provides a number of guidelines to inform site selection including:
43 o Avoid turbines on the skyline
o Steer proposals away from exposed and steep ridgelines and summits or where they would extend their visual influence to both north and south of the hills
o Maximise the amount of backclothing provided by the landform
o Conserve and enhance open hill character
o Consider steering development to areas already affected by man-made features
It is considered that the proposal would be sufficiently in accordance with this advice.
• The Economic Impacts of Windfarms on Scottish Tourism 2008, Glasgow Caledonian University Study on behalf of the Scottish Government. Comment: The overall conclusion of the research was that the Government's target at that time of 50% of Scotland's electricity from renewable sources by 2020 could be met with minimal impact on the tourism industry's target to grow revenue. The research also concluded that:
o From a tourism perspective, a small number of larger developments may be preferable to a larger number of small developments
o A number of windfarms in sight at any point in time may be undesirable
o The loss of value when moving from medium to large developments is not as great as the initial loss. It is the basic intrusion into the landscape that generates the loss of value for tourists.
o Approximately three quarters of tourists felt windfarms had a positive or neutral effect on the landscape
• Proposed Clackmannanshire Local Development Plan and Associated Documents. Comment: The proposed Plan has not been approved by Council and is due to be considered in August 2013. This would not inhibit reaching a decision on the application. A report titled "Sensitivity of the Clackmannanshire Landscape to Wind Turbine Development" Luc, 2012 was commissioned as part of the LDP process and to inform the Plan. This report included advice on the sensitivity of the landscape character areas and contained siting and design guidance. In relation to the Western Peaks area in which the site is located, the guidelines state:
o The area has higher sensitivity to wind turbines although the existing BFH Windfarm reduces the apparent sensitivity
o In terms of cumulative impact issues, the expansion of existing windfarms where they would be seen as part of a single and coherent entity within the landscape context are likely to have
44 less cumulative effect than the introduction of separate schemes or extensions which do not display these characteristics
o It would be difficult to accommodate new wind turbine development in the Ochils due to cumulative effects but modest extensions of existing sites could be accommodated provided the unity and scale of the existing windfarm can be maintained
It is considered that the design and context of these proposals would not be contrary to this guidance.
Key Planning Impacts
7.8 A development of this type and scale raises a number of issues which require to be considered in relation to the significance of the impact and where relevant the following comments have contributed to the Development Plan assessment in Section 6.0 above. Our assessment has considered the information contained in the EIA, the concerns raised by third parties and the advice of consultees and a summary of the key issues are provided below.
Landscape Impact
7.9 The landscape character of the site and environs is described in paragraph 7.7 above. In terms of the proposal, we have concluded that:
a. The development would have a localised significant effect (up to 2km away), but alongside the existing landscape characteristics, including the existing BFH windfarm, the overall change would not be significant and the scale of the additional negative impact would not be sufficient to withhold permission.
In terms of potential landscape cumulative impacts, we agree with the applicant that this would not be significant given the proposal and the Burnfoot Hill Extension approved by Perth and Kinross Council would comprise an extension to the existing windfarm and represent a single wind energy development. These developments would also not significantly change the established spatial separation between the windfarms in views to and from this landscape character area. The extension would still maintain the existing character of the landscape to one where windfarm development would be a key characteristic of the landscape but not one which would be a windfarm landscape. This is supported by the ZTV analysis which shows that the visibility of the proposals compared with the BFH windfarm are very similar, including within the Ochil hill tops, Strathearn and Strathallan and the Gargunnock Hills.
b. As discussed under Policies ENV2 and EN2 in paragraph 6.4 above we have concluded that the impact on the overall quality of the Ochils AGLV is not considered to be sufficiently detrimental to justify withholding permission. The developments would not adversely affect any other designated landscape areas.
45 Visual Impact
7.10 The applicant's visual assessment considered the potential impact on views and visual amenity within a 35km radius of the development. This concluded that:
• There would be no significant visual effect experienced from settlements or individual houses including Greenloaning, Braco, Gleneagles, Auchterarder or any settlement in Clackmannanshire or Stirling
• There would be no significant effects experienced from transport routes including the A9, A823, A822, B827 and Glasgow to Perth railway
• There would be no significant effects experienced from recreational or tourist destinations such as Stirling Castle, Gleneagles Hotel and Golf Courses, Drummond Castle Gardens, the Wallace Monument or Frandy Fishery
• There would be significant visual effects from a number of locations used for recreational enjoyment. This includes from several of the hill tops including Ben Cleuch, Ben Buck, Andrew Gannel Hill and King's Seat Hill; and from part of the Tillicoultry to Blackford path. There would be a number of cumulative impacts experienced from recreational routes or by users associated with the existing BFH windfarm and also Green Knowes and the approved Burnfoot Hill Extension as well as other windfarms such as Braes of Doune. However, these would already occur as a result of the BFH windfarm.
7.11 Our assessment of the EIA has taken account of the information presented, the visits to the site and surrounding areas, the advice from consultees including SNH and Friends of the Ochils and the representations from third parties. We have reached the following conclusions:
a. The most significant visual impacts will be experienced close to the site including the summits of Ben Cleuch, Ben Buck, Andrew Gannel Hill and King's Seat and parts of the right of way between Tillicoultry and Blackford between Maddy Moss and Glen Bee. The turbines would be approximately 1.6km from the summit of Ben Cleuch (721m AOD) and 0.9km from Ben Buck (679m AOD). The maximum height to the top of the blade tips would range between 569m AOD to 667m AOD. This is comparable with the range of heights at BFH windfarm. The turbines would extend the existing array westwards by approximately 1.1km. From the summit of Ben Cleuch, the angle of view containing turbines would be extended from 280 to 440, an increase of approximately 44%. They would introduce turbines into the foreground in views towards the hills north west of Crieff. From King's Seat they would be viewed in the foreground in views towards some of the mountains within the Loch Lomond and Trossachs National Park. The impact on views from Ben Cleuch and on the recreational enjoyment and landscape value of the hill, including cumulative impacts, was the most frequent concern raised by objectors. The turbines would be clearly viewed as an extension of the existing BFH Windfarm and in some views in combination with or in succession with Green Knowes, the BFH Extension and Braes of Doune. The extension would increase the visual impact as it would extend the horizontal
46 spread of turbines from several sensitive viewpoints. However, the impact is not considered to be sufficiently detrimental to justify withholding permission for the following reasons:
• The development would be viewed as an extension to the existing BFH windfarm which already impacts on visual amenity
• The mitigation by the applicant to re-design the proposal would maintain a reasonable fit with the BFH windfarm design and would sufficiently appear to be contained in the landscape bowl occupied by the existing windfarm having regard to the extent of backclothing by the hills (eg. Core Hill) and the strath to the north, and the relationship to the existing turbines.
• The turbines would be largely visible from the same summits and approaches as from where the existing wind farm is visible
• While the horizontal spread would be extended, this would not have a significant detrimental impact on the views northwards from the hilltops.
• The cumulative impacts with existing or consented windfarms would not be sufficiently adverse to justify withholding permission as it would not significantly affect the established pattern of spacing or views of turbines from sensitive viewpoints.
• We have also had regard to the potential cumulative impact associated with the proposed windfarm at Frandy Hill which is currently at appeal to Scottish Ministers. While it is our conclusion that Frandy Hill would have a significant and adverse cumulative visual impact, this would be the case with or without the current proposals. This view is shared by Perth and Kinross Council, SNH and a number of objectors. Friends of the Ochils and several other objectors have raised concern about the determination process and timing of this in relation to the Frandy Hill application. We have carefully considered the issue and while we recognise that the circumstances are not ideal, we have concluded that there is no significant benefit in delaying a decision on the application until the decision on Frandy Hill is known. The extension is considered to be acceptable and if approved, this would inform the decision on the Frandy Hill application for what would be a separate windfarm. In our judgement, if Frandy Hill was considered to be acceptable by Scottish Ministers, notwithstanding our concerns, we would not be confident that a decision to refuse the extension to BFH windfarm on landscape and visual impact grounds would be sustained at an appeal. b. Perth and Kinross Council as well as some objectors have raised concern about the layout and visual impact of the turbines in views from the north and north west. The ZTV analysis shows that visibility increases in views from these directions at distances of between 10 - 35km. The development would impact on views from Strathearn and Strathallan areas including parts
47 of Greenloaning, Braco, Gleneagles and Crieff, the Knock of Crieff viewpoint and points on the A827, A85 and B827. SNH has commented that;
• In many views the proposed turbines will appear as part of the existing compact scheme but from some directions (e.g. Crieff) they will view as an extended line.
• In some views the proposed turbines will be seen in a different landscape context, e.g. from the B827, the existing turbines are behind the skyline but all but one of the proposed turbines lie on or in front of it.
While the proposed development would be seen in a different landscape context in some of these views, including from the B827 and northern parts of Braco, these visual impacts would not be sufficiently adverse to justify withholding permission given;
• The relative distances between the receptors and the development, being at least 8.5km away.
• The extent of the increase in horizontal spread of the development in relation to the existing spread of BFH Windfarm in these views and with other windfarms.
• The extent to which the greatest visual impacts portrayed in the EIA are in views from roads rather than individual residential properties. The appreciation of the view would inevitably keep changing while travelling along a road. c. An objection has been received on behalf of Gleneagles Hotel who have raised concern about;
• The potential adverse cumulative effects of the additional blades or hubs particularly from the upper floors of the hotel, the Glenmor complex and shooting ground.
• The importance of maintaining a high quality landscape setting for the hotel, golf course and resort and tourism in the area. The Hotel will host the Ryder Cup and the views from the course and clubhouse are important in creating an image. The grounds form part of an Inventory Garden and Designed Landscape.
• The effect on the economic value of the Hotel to the area, which they advise provides approximately 600 jobs and supports the wider economy.
• The impacts from the development affect receptors outwith Clackmannanshire and consideration should be given to this.
• The developer has not demonstrated that the adverse impact on tourism would be offset by the economic benefits of the proposals.
• The proposal would be contrary to Clackmannanshire's Development Plan.
48 It is our conclusion, having regard to the above, the extensive analysis provided by the applicant and the findings of a visit to the Hotel, that the weight that should be attributed to the potential impacts on the landscaping setting, visual amenity, tourism economy and the Ryder Cup event at the Hotel and resort, either individually or collectively, would not justify withholding planning permission. This is based on the collective mitigatory effects of;
• Some of the locations which are of concern are based on the ZVT analysis but the turbines, either wholly or partly, would be screened by intervening topography, vegetation and buildings.
• The intervening distance, circa 7.5 km.
• The absence of objections from SNH, Historic Scotland or Perth & Kinross Council relating to any adverse impact on the Hotel and the Inventory Garden and Designed Landscape.
• The absence of visibility of any of the proposed turbines from the Ryder Cup course or from the Dormy Clubhouse.
• The conclusion of the EIA that the proposal would not result in any significant adverse cumulative landscape or visual impacts on the Hotel.
d. Finally, the representations in support of the application make the following comments on landscape and visual impact;
• Any adverse visual impact must be balanced with the wider damage which climate change could create in the area.
• The impact would inconvenience very few people.
• The development would not affect their enjoyment of the area.
Recreational Impacts
7.12 The EIA recognises that significant landscape and visual impacts would occur within 6.8km of the development. This coincides with the location of the main hill tops in the western Ochils as described in paragraph 7.11 (a) above.
7.13 A number of objectors, including Friends of the Ochils, Strathkelvin Ramblers and Corriemulzie Mountaineering Club, have raised concern about the adverse impacts that the turbines would have on views from the tops and ridges, due to the increase in horizontal spread, to the detriment of the enjoyment of the landscape and the experience of remoteness achievable while still close to the Central Belt.
7.14 The impacts, both individually and cumulatively with other consented or proposed wind farms, are largely related to landscape and visual amenity issues. The impacts for visitors to the Hills are predicted to be significant when they occur given the nature and scale of the development. We have carefully considered the effect on recreational access and the concerns and have concluded that the proposal would not have a sufficiently
49 adverse impact to justify withholding permission for the following reasons;
• The assessment has to take account of the existing BFH Windfarm which already impacts on those viewpoints and visitors. We have concluded that the extension comprising 6 turbines would not result in unacceptable individual or cumulative landscape and visual impacts as explained in paragraphs 7.9 and 7.11.
• From Ben Cleuch, while the angle of view of the existing array would be extended by approximately 44o, the overall design concept and context would be maintained. For example, the turbines would be contained within the "landscape bowl", a point highlighted by SNH.
• There are few locations on popular routes where the proposed turbines would be visible where the existing BFH windfarm was not already visible in views. In common with the existing windfarm, the proposed turbines would not be visible over substantial lengths of these routes, from Dumyat or from views of the south facing escarpment.
• The absence of evidence that the existing wind farm has led to a reduction in visitors to the western Ochils, notwithstanding the concerns of objectors. The permission for BFH Wind Farm was subject to mitigatory measures to address the potential adverse impact on recreational access in the area. This is being used to fund various projects to encourage access to the Ochils which, together with other schemes, may help offset any adverse effects. It is considered that a similar approach should be taken to the proposed extension to the existing BFH Windfarm to mitigate the impact on visitors to the hills which could be secured through a variation to the existing planning obligation. This is expected to provide an additional £32k per annum index linked which would provide an approximate £800,000k over the duration of the permission.
Tourism
7.15 A number of objectors, including Gleneagles Hotel, have raised concern about the adverse impact that the development would have on the tourist economy which is related to the landscape quality of the area. Notwithstanding these concerns, we are not persuaded that there would be sufficient evidence to justify withholding permission on these grounds along for the following reasons;
• Our assessment of the magnitude of the visual impacts on the visitors to the Ochils or Gleneagles as discussed in the report above.
• The absence of conclusive evidence that wind farm development would adversely affect tourism, having regard to available research including "The Economic Impact of Wind Farms on
50 Scottish Tourism" (2007) commissioned by the Scottish Government. Furthermore, the research suggests that having a number of wind farms in sight at any one time is undesirable from the point of view of the tourism industry and the loss of value of moving from medium to large developments is not as great as the initial loss. The proposal would comprise an extension to an existing wind farm which would already be visible from those areas which the objections refer to.
• Visit Scotland was consulted on the application but has not submitted any adverse comments on the proposal.
Habitat and Ecology
7.16 The EIA has examined the direct and indirect impacts of the development on habitat and ecology. We are satisfied with its conclusions that subject to the proposed mitigation, the development would not have any unacceptable adverse impacts on any designated sites, protected species, ornithological interests or Local Biodiversity Action Plan priority habitats or species. The assessment has considered the potential impacts on;
• The qualifying interests of the South Tayside Goose Roost SPA and Firth of Forth SPA located 5-7km and 9km from the site respectively.
• The nearest SSSIs, including Gartmorn Dam.
• Any protected species which may be present.
• Any important habitat or plant communities.
7.17 We are satisfied that any impacts on sensitive natural heritage interests, including blanket bog as highlighted by SEPA, would not be significant and could be satisfactorily managed and mitigated by the following measures;
• All works to comply with an approved Environmental Management Plan
• The provision of Habitat Management Plans, including a Peat Management Plan to deliver a net biodiversity improvement over the area.
• A Construction Management Plan
• Pre-construction Surveys would be required for protected species
• Measures to safeguard or restore peat habitat to compensate for the damage required to construct extension
• The requirements that an Ecological Clerk of Works would be employed for the duration of the construction and establishment period.
51 • The absence of any objection from SNH, SEPA or the RSPB on natural heritage interests subject to the above mitigation measures
7.18 The potential impact on ornithological interests, including red grouse, has been raised in objections from some third parties. The EIA states that the potential impacts due to habitat loss, disturbance, displacement or collision risk would not be significant and of a low magnitude. There would not be sufficient grounds to withhold permission on the basis of this level of impact; the absence of objections from relevant consultees and the effects of the proposed mitigation.
7.19 The site contains peat habitat and disturbance of the peat layer during construction can:
a. increase the risk of peat slide, where a portion of peat mass becomes detached and flows downhill. Comment: The applicant has undertaken a peat slide risk assessment. SNH is satisfied, subject to investigation of a small area and the proposed mitigation measures, that the risk could be managed and would not justify withholding permission. The mitigation and management measures would be agreed and implemented in consultation with SNH and SEPA.
b. Damage the integrity of the peat bog, which can result in carbon dioxide currently stored in the peat being released into the environment. Comment: This is discussed in paragraph 3.10 above.
Water Environment
7.20 The EIA has addressed the potential impacts on geology, hydrogeology and surface water hydrology during the life the development. The watercourses which may be impacted are tributaries of the Upper Glendevon Reservoir and River Devon. We are satisfied that the potential risks or impacts could be mitigated to adequately safeguard these issues having regard to:
• The proposed mitigation measures including an Environmental Management Plan, Construction Method Statement, Peat Management Plan, Water Management Plan and employment of an Ecological Clerk of Works,
• The absence of any objection from SEPA, SNH or Scottish Water to the application, and mitigation measures
• The regulatory role of SEPA in protecting the water environment
• The fact that the District Salmon Fishery Board has not commented on the application having been consulted
• The development being an extension to an existing windfarm which was constructed without any evidence of significant harm to the water environment
52 Noise
7.21 The EIA has examined the potential noise impact from the proposed extension to BFH windfarm and the potential cumulative noise impacts with the extension of 2 turbines (approved by Perth and Kinross Council) and the proposed Frandy Hill windfarm at the three closest residential properties to the site. This has concluded that the potential individual and cumulative impact from the proposed extension would accord with the requirements of the noise conditions attached to the permission for the existing windfarm. We are satisfied that the development would not result in any unacceptable impacts due to noise having regard to:
• The predicted noise levels would accord with the standards set out in ETSU-R-97-The Assessment for the Rating of Noise From Wind Farms. The Government advice states this framework should be used by planning authorities to assess noise from such developments.
• Environmental Health have not objected and are satisfied if permission is granted subject to conditions consistent with the existing consent.
• Perth and Kinross Council's Environmental Health Unit have raised no objection to the potential cumulative impacts of noise from the extension to BFH windfarm or Frandy Hill on nearby residential properties, which all lie within their area
• The cumulative noise impact from the proposal with the existing windfarm is not considered to significantly increase or alter the established noise impact associated with BFH windfarm on the recreational enjoyment of this part of the Ochils.
Cultural Heritage
7.22 The EIA has examined the potential direct and indirect impacts on historic sites or their setting within 10km of the development. This includes scheduled ancient monuments, Inventory Gardens and Designed Landscapes, listed buildings and Sheriffmuir battlefield. We are satisfied with its conclusion that there would be no significant or adverse impacts on these interests. Historic Scotland confirm they are content with the conclusions reached in the EIA. The Regional Archaeologist has raised no objection.
Aviation and Telecommunications Interests
7.23 The proposal has been assessed in relation to potential conflict with aviation and telecommunications interests. No objections have been received.
Inefficiency and Viability of the Technology
7.24 Several objectors have expressed concern about the support for onshore wind in Government planning and energy policy given their environmental impact, the variability of production due to wind conditions, the public subsidy provided to develop sites and the need for back-up generating capacity from fossil fuel or nuclear power stations. Comment: Scottish Planning Policy
53 states that planning authorities should support the development of renewable energy technologies and should support the development of windfarms in locations where the technology can operate efficiently and environmental and cumulative impacts can be satisfactorily addressed. The balance of power generation technologies is for national government to determine rather than for local planning authorities. The approach is underpinned by more recent policy statements including the Government's 2020 Route Map for Renewable Energy in Scotland. We are satisfied that the environmental impacts could be addressed and that the development would make a worthwhile contribution to the Government's target of generating electricity from renewable resources as part of the strategy to tackle climate change. The contribution is summarised in paragraph 3.10 above. It should be noted that the representations in favour of the application highlighted the positive contribution of the development to meeting national targets.
Transport
7.25 We are satisfied that the development would not result in any unacceptable impacts on road safety having regard to:
• The absence of any objections from the Roads Service, Transport Scotland or the Roads Service in Perth and Kinross Council.
• The ability to manage the potential impacts using a Traffic Management Plan which could be regulated by condition.
• The adequacy of the existing infrastructure which enabled the construction of the existing BFH windfarm
Incremental Approach by Applicant to Secure Permission
7.26 Some objections have highlighted that if the original application for BFH had included the proposed turbines, the application may have been refused and that the approach of securing development and returning for more is somewhat cynical. Comment: Each application has to be determined on its individual merits. We are satisfied that the proposed development, together with the recently approved extension for 2 turbines, would be environmentally acceptable and maintain the compact layout and landscape context achieved by the existing windfarm and the established spacing with other existing windfarm development. In carrying out our analysis, we did not consider that we could have reached this conclusion based on the previous scheme comprising 9 turbines. Neither do we consider that there is sufficient landscape capacity to accommodate another windfarm in this area, including the proposed Frandy Hill windfarm without unacceptable impacts on the character and visual amenity of the Western Ochils. However, this does not prevent the determination of the application in our opinion.
Decommissioning and Reinstatement
7.27 Concern has been raised in the objections from third parties that there is an unacceptable risk of securing satisfactory reinstatement of the site including in the event the developer cannot do so. Comment: The planning permission requires the removal of the turbines and reinstatement of the ground at the
54 end of their operational life or if production ceases for a period of 6 months. A financial guarantee would also have to be lodged with the Council to ensure the development could be satisfactorily restored if the developer was unable to do so. There would not be grounds to withhold permission for this reason.
Proposed Moratorium on Further Wind Energy Development in the Ochils
7.28 One of the objections requests that no further applications should be approved until new relevant Development Plan policy is in place covering the Ochils. Comment: It is not considered reasonable to delay a decision pending the approval of new planning policy guidance within Clackmannanshire and Perth and Kinross Council's areas. The Scottish Government has recently responded to other Council's requests for a moratorium and discounted such an approach as inappropriate.
8.0 Conclusions
8.1 Our assessment has followed the approach set out in paragraph 6.2 and 6.3 above. This has concluded that;
a. On balance, the proposal accords with the objectives and provisions of the Development Plan. This is set out in Section 6.0 of the report.
b. There are a number of other material considerations which need to be considered to establish whether either, individually or collectively, they would outweigh the Development Plan position and justify withholding permission or would support the policy position. These have been examined in Section 7.0 above and we have concluded that they would not provide sufficient grounds to outweigh the Development Plan position and justify withholding permission. In particular;
• The key issues are considered to relate to landscape, visual amenity and recreational impacts. These have been raised in many of the objections. However, it is considered that these impacts would not be sufficient to justify withholding permission as discussed in paragraphs 7.9 to 7.14 above. In particular, the proposal would still be perceived as a single wind farm as part of the existing BFH Wind farm and extension approved by Perth and Kinross Council. The proposed design, layout, landscape context and number of turbines would satisfy the principles identified by SNH in its original response necessary to minimise any further unacceptable landscape and visual impacts in the western Ochils, namely;
(i) To maintain the existing clear separation between Burnfoot Hill and nearest wind farms, including Greenknowes.
(ii) Any development must be sited and perceived as part of existing Burnfoot Hill array and should have the same landscape context and not detract from the existing compact and simple layout.
55 • SNH does not object to the application and has advised that the layout would achieve a reasonable fit with the existing and consented turbines at Burnfoot Hill.
• It is not considered that there is reasonable or persuasive grounds to defer a decision on the application pending a decision on the planning appeal for the proposed Frandy Hill wind farm. The development would be perceived as part of the existing wind farm and would not result in any unacceptable cumulative impacts. In contrast, Frandy Hill would be perceived as a new wind farm and would result in a much more significant adverse impact whether this application was approved or not. If Frandy Hill was approved, it is not considered that there would be sufficient grounds to sustain an appeal against the proposed extension.
• The absence of any objections from other statutory consultees or their conclusion that any potential adverse impacts could be satisfactorily mitigated.
• The broad support for wind energy development set out in national policy guidance where the environmental and cumulative effects can be addressed. The development would contribute towards the Government's renewable targets for electricity generation and to the reduction in atmospheric pollution associated with greenhouse gases.
• The support expressed in the representations received in favour of the application.
8.2 It is therefore concluded that there would be insufficient grounds to justify withholding permission having regard to the weight of support from the Development Plan, those material considerations in support of the development and the ability to mitigate adverse impacts.
9.0 Resource Implications
9.1 Financial Details
9.2 The full financial implications of the recommendations are set out in the report. This includes a reference to full life cycle costs where appropriate. Yes
9.3 Finance have been consulted and have agreed the financial implications as set out in the report. Yes
10.0 Exempt Reports
10.1 Is this report exempt? Yes (please detail the reasons for exemption below) No ;
11.0 Declarations
56 The recommendations contained within this report support or implement our Corporate Priorities and Council Policies.
(1) Our Priorities (Please double click on the check box ;)
The area has a positive image and attracts people and businesses ; Our communities are more cohesive and inclusive People are better skilled, trained and ready for learning and employment Our communities are safer Vulnerable people and families are supported Substance misuse and its effects are reduced Health is improving and health inequalities are reducing The environment is protected and enhanced for all ; The Council is effective, efficient and recognised for excellence
(2) Council Policies (Please detail)
12.0 Equalities Impact
12.1 Have you undertaken the required equalities impact assessment to ensure that no groups are adversely affected by the recommendations? Yes ; No
13.0 Legality
13.1 It has been confirmed that in adopting the recommendations contained in this report, the Council is acting within its legal powers. Yes
14.0 Appendices
14.1 Please list any appendices attached to this report. If there are no appendices, please state "none".
Appendix 1 - Conditions and Reasons for Conditions Appendix 2 - Summary Of Consultation Responses To Amended Application Appendix 3 - List of Representees
15.0 Background Papers
15.1 Have you used other documents to compile your report? (All documents must be kept available by the author for public inspection for four years from the date of meeting at which the report is considered) Yes ; (please list the documents below) No
57 Clackmannanshire Local Plan; Clackmannanshire and Stirling Structure Plan; SPP; PAN Nos1/2011, 51, 58, 60; Scottish Government Online Advice on Onshore Wind Turbines; Siting and Designing Wind Farms in the Landscape, SNH; Planning Application References (Clackmannanshire 06/00121/FULL and 13/00097/FULL/Perth and Kinross Council 11/01930/FLL. 11/01952/FLL); DPEA Decision Letter for Lochelbank Ref P/PPA/340/491;
Author(s)
NAME DESIGNATION TEL NO / EXTENSION
Keith Johnstone Principal Planner 2614
Approved by
NAME DESIGNATION SIGNATURE
Ian Duguid Development Quality Team Leader
Julie Hamilton Development Service Manager
58 APPENDIX 1 - CONDITIONS AND REASONS FOR CONDITIONS
Conditions
1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun within 3 years of the date of the planning permission.
2. No development shall commence and no preparatory work, other than survey work to help discharge or purify these conditions, shall take place on the site or adjacent land, until details of the routing, specification, means of construction and arrangements for implementation of the connection from the site to the national grid have been approved by the Council as planning authority in consultation with the Regional Archaeologist. Thereafter, the connection shall be installed only in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Council, as planning authority.
3. This permission shall expire 25 years from the date that the development is commissioned. By that time, unless otherwise agreed in advance by the planning authority, all wind turbines, all foundations and equipment reaching within 1 metre of the surface, and all buildings, other equipment and ancillary equipment shall be dismantled and removed from the site with the ground fully reinstated in accordance with all relevant conditions below.
4. Written confirmation of the date of the commencement of the development, and of the date of commissioning of the development, shall be provided to the planning authority within one month of each occurring. All construction activities shall be completed within 15 months of the commencement of development unless otherwise approved in writing by the Council, as planning authority.
5. No development shall commence on site until a Construction Method Statement has been submitted to, and been approved in writing by the Council as planning authority after consultation with Perth and Kinross Council, SEPA, Scottish Water, SNH and any other party deemed relevant by the planning authority. The method statement shall take account of relevant "best practice" advice and address the following: a) The arrangements to manage the timing of construction works to safeguard wildlife interests. b) Site tracks detailing the design and construction methods to be used in different parts of the site and for ongoing maintenance c) Borrow pits and rock crushing (including the extent and depth of the pits and specification for restoration). d) Crane pads, cable trenches, construction compound and foundation widths. e) Switchgear building (including the location, design and external finish). f) Anemometry mast.
59 g) Oil storage (for construction and operational phases) h) Cleaning of the site access, the right of way crossing point and public highway (including wheel wash facilities (if necessary). i) Post construction restoration/reinstatement of working areas including the specification for land reinstatement. j) Dust management plan. k) Water abstraction. l) Surface water management plan (including flood management measures, silt traps and temporary stoppage of works). m) Pollution prevention plan. n) A detailed Peat Management Plan which would assess and contain measures to minimise the disturbance of peat by avoidance where possible and the proposals to manage excavated peat in accordance with the advice contained in Section 2 of the consultation letter from SEPA dated 12 December 2011. o) The arrangements to maintain public access routes during the construction phase. p) The arrangements to employ staff with appropriate expertise to monitor and minimise the environmental impacts of the works. q) The locations for the storage of topsoil.
All electricity and control cables between the turbines and the switchgear building and within the site shall be laid underground alongside existing tracks or tracks authorised by this permission unless otherwise approved in writing by the Council, as planning authority. The approved construction method statement shall include geotechnical, hydrological and hydro geological information prepared by a suitably qualified person. The development shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved method statement.
6. No development shall commence on site until fencing has been erected in a manner to be agreed with the Council, as planning authority, around the Shepherd's Cairn (Grid Ref NN89272 02402), and no works shall take place within the area inside the fencing without the prior agreement of the planning authority.
7. No development shall commence on site until:
a) A Traffic Management Plan has been submitted to and approved by the Council in consultation with the Perth and Kinross Council detailing the number and sizes of vehicles required for the installation and maintenance of the proposed wind farm and access improvements and the likely frequency and directions of approach and departure and the measures to be adopted to minimise the impacts of the traffic on the public road network. This shall include the measures, where practicable, to minimise any cumulative traffic impact associated with the construction of any other windfarm development in the Ochil Hills with consent at the commencement of development.
60 Thereafter, the development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Council.
8. Within two months of the complete wind farm becoming operational, all soil and material stockpiles shall be removed and all borrow pits and construction areas (including extended hard standings) shall be reinstated using original plant and organic material carefully lifted, set aside, and stored with its "growing side up" for its reuse at reinstatement stage. Alternatively a suitable seed mix shall be used subject to the prior written approval of the planning authority in consultation with SNH.
9. No development shall commence on the construction of the turbine towers and all ancillary elements (including transformers, switchgear building, compound and fencing) until written approval has been obtained from the planning authority of the design, external finishes and colours of the turbines and all ancillary elements. For the avoidance of doubt, the turbines shall match the design, appearance, proportions, colour, external finish, blade shape and diameter direction and transformer location as the existing turbines approved by the planning permission 06/00121/FULL. Thereafter, these elements of the development shall be implemented and maintained in accordance with these details as approved.
10. For all turbines a variation of their indicated position by up to 25 metres shall be permitted. A variation of greater than 25 metres shall only be permitted following the prior written approval of the planning authority.
11. The blades of all of the turbines shall rotate in the same direction when generating as those in the existing Burnfoot Hill Windfarm array. The turbines shall not be illuminated. The use of logos on turbine blades, nacelles and towers is prohibited.
12. Before any turbine or turbine component is delivered to the site, full details of each turbine type shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority. The details shall include the make, model, design, power rating and sound power levels. The specification shall be equivalent to or better than that specified in the Noise Assessment contained in Volume 2 or the Environmental Statement.
13. The wind farm operator shall maintain a continuous log of wind speed and direction data, and shall retain all data for 12 months after it is recorded. This shall include average wind speeds in m/sec for each 10-minute period (on the hour and in 10-minute increments). All this data shall be released to the planning authority on request, being held and provided in electronic spreadsheet format. In the case of any data gathered at heights other than 10m above ground it shall be supplemented by adjusted values, which allow for wind shear, normalised to a height of 10m, and details of the wind shear calculation shall be provided.
14. At wind speeds of 10m/sec, as measured or calculated at 10m above ground level at the approved turbine sites, the turbine noise level shall not exceed:
61
a) At Backhills Farm, 45dB(A) LA90, 10min during both nighttime and daytime hours. b) At any other residential property without an interest in the development, 35dB(A) LA90, 10min during both night-time and daytime hours
Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Council.
15. Following installation of, but prior to commissioning of the wind farm, the operator shall measure noise emissions from the wind turbines and every two years thereafter unless otherwise agreed by the Council, and shall submit the resultant data, including a comparison with the predicted levels in the noise assessment document, to the planning authority within one month of the measurements being carried out.
16. Should the noise levels in Condition 14 be exceeded, the wind farm operator shall take immediate steps to ensure that noise emissions from the development or from any part of it, are reduced forthwith to the levels set out there.
17. Unless otherwise agreed in advance by the Council, as planning authority, all fixed and mobile plant used within and around the site during the construction phase shall not incorporate bleeping type warning devices that are audible outwith the site boundary.
18. Unless otherwise approved in advance in writing by the planning authority, no construction work involving audible noise outwith the site shall take place or deliveries of materials or components to the site shall be received outwith 0700 - 1900 hours Monday to Friday and 0800 -1200 Saturday and at no time on Sunday or local bank holidays other than otherwise agreed under the requirements of Condition 5 above.
19. No development shall commence on site until a water-monitoring programme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Council, as planning authority. Thereafter, the development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.
20. Within 3 years of commissioning of the development, a fully detailed scheme for the ultimate reinstatement of the site shall have been submitted to and approved by the Council, as planning authority in consultation with SNH. The scheme shall include required decommissioning works covering the dismantling and removal from site of all turbines, buildings and ancillary development (including tracks) and the arrangements to ensure the effective reinstatement (e.g. re-seeding) and aftercare of the site. The developer shall decommission and restore the site in accordance with the scheme as approved and/or amended by the Council in accordance with the timescale specified in Condition No. 3 above unless the Council have directed that a longer period shall apply.
62
21. Should any turbine cease supplying electricity to a local grid for a continuous period of 6 months, it will be deemed to be no longer required and unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Council, as planning authority, the wind turbine and its ancillary equipment shall be dismantled and removed from the site, with the ground fully reinstated in accordance with the decommissioning and reinstatement scheme required by Condition 20 above, within 6 months of the deemed cessation date.
22. a) No development shall commence on the site until the developer has submitted the following to the Council, as planning authority:
i. details of an indexed link bond or other financial instrument which will ensure that funds sufficient to cover the completion of the decommissioning and site restoration costs, in accordance with Condition 20 above, are available at all times to the developer and planning authority prior to the decommissioning and site restoration and
ii. confirmation by a suitably qualified and experienced Chartered Surveyor (whose appointment for this task has been approved by the planning authority) that the amount of the bond or financial instrument is sufficient to meet the cost of all decommissioning and site restoration, by the developer or planning authority
There shall be no commencement of development until such time as the planning authority has approved the arrangements and sufficient documentary evidence has been submitted to the planning authority to show the approved funds are in place.
b) The approved bond or financial instrument shall be maintained throughout the duration of the permission and reinstatement period. At 5 yearly intervals from the commencement of development, an independent review of the approved bond or financial instrument shall be carried out and submitted to the planning authority. The planning authority may direct that the bond or instrument is amended if this is deemed necessary to ensure that funds remain sufficient for decommissioning and site restoration.
23. Notwithstanding the terms of Schedule 1, Part 2, Class 7 of the Town and County Planning (General Permitted Development) (Scotland) Order 1992, as amended, no walls, fences or other means of enclosure shall be erected within or around the site without the prior approval of the Council, as planning authority.
24. No development shall commence on the site until pre-construction surveys are carried out for European Protected Species and the results of the surveys and any proposed mitigation have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Council, as planning authority.
63 25. At least 2 months before the commencement of any site works, a site specific Environmental Management Plan (EMP) shall be submitted for the written approval of the Council, as planning authority, in consultation with SNH, SEPA, landowners and any other party deemed relevant by the planning authority. The EMP will incorporate:
a) A Habitat Management Plan (HMP) including details of compensatory modified by restoration of an area at least 125% of the area of bog lost or altered as a result of the development. b) Additional assessment of peat slide risk in relation to Turbine 20 and as set out in Table 1 of the report dated March 2013. c) The mitigation or enhancement measures, largely as described in Sections 7.6, 7.7 and 8.7 of the Environmental Statement Vol 2 dated November 2011. This shall include a Water Management Plan and Waste Management Plan. d) The arrangements for post construction management of land an habitat, including grazing or other agricultural activities. e) The arrangements for regular monitoring of the HMP and, if appropriate, to review the effectiveness of the Plan and incorporate amendments. f) The measures to protect spawning streams during the construction period
There shall be no commencement of development until the Council, as planning authority, has approved the EMP and associated Plans.
Thereafter, all site works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved EMP and associated Plans, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Council, as planning authority.
26. Before any works on site to construct the 6 turbines hereby approved, the following details shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Council, as planning authority, in consultation with the Ministry of Defence (Defence Infrastructure Organisation) as to:
a) the date construction is scheduled to start and end b) the maximum height of construction equipment c) the latitude and longitude of the six turbines d) details of the infrared aviation lighting to be installed
The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and the infrared lighting shall be maintained to ensure it remains operational on the turbines for the lifetime of the development unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Council, in consultation with the Ministry of Defence.
64 Reasons for Conditions:
1. To accord with Section 58 of the Act.
2. To minimise the effects of the development on the local environment having regard to the sensitive landscape, visual amenity and environmental character of the proposed route across the summits and south-facing escarpment of this part of the Ochil Hills range.
3. In recognition of the expected life span of the development and in order to ensure the site is satisfactorily restored.
4. To enable the planning authority to monitor the construction and operation of the development and to minimise the period of possible disruption due to construction activities.
5. To minimise the effects of the development on the local environment, flora, fauna, local residents and visitors.
6. To protect known features of the historic environment.
7. In the interests of road safety.
8. In the interests of visual amenity and landscape protection.
9. In the interests of visual amenity and landscape protection.
10. To ensure that any micro-siting is sensitively employed.
11. To minimise the visual impact of the turbines.
12. To ensure the amenity of nearby residents and visitors are adequately protected.
13. In order that the planning authority retains sufficient control over any changes in noise from the development or over any differences between the actual noise and that which is presently anticipated from the development.
14. To minimise potential noise disturbance and protect the amenity of nearby residents.
65
15. In order that the planning authority retains sufficient control over any changes in noise from the development or over any differences between the actual noise and that which is presently anticipated from the development.
16. In order to ensure that residential amenity is adequately safeguarded.
17. To minimise disturbance and safeguard the amenity of nearby residents and visitors.
18. To minimise disturbance and safeguard the amenity of nearby residents and visitors.
19. To avoid pollution of watercourses and to safeguard the quality of private water supplies.
20. To secure the satisfactory removal of the development and the restoration of the site at the end of their operational life.
21. In the interests of safety, amenity and environmental protection upon any such plant becoming redundant during, or on conclusion of, the anticipated life span.
22. To ensure that at all times there are sufficient funds available to secure decommissioning and site restoration in the interests of environmental and visual amenity.
23. To safeguard visual amenity it is considered necessary to withdraw these permitted development rights.
24. To ensure the potential impacts on protected species can be identified.
25. To ensure the provision of effective environmental protection and mitigation in the interests of natural heritage and amenity.
26. In the interests of military aviation safety and visual amenity
66 APPENDIX 2 - SUMMARY OF CONSULTATION RESPONSES TO AMENDED APPLICATION
Consultee Issues Objection SNH Consider that the proposed layout would achieve a No reasonable fit with the existing consented turbines (15 in total) at Burnfoot Hill and that the turbines would be perceived as part of the existing development. They have highlighted some detailed comments, namely:
• In views from Ben Cleuch, the existing array would be extended by almost 2/3 but it will still appear to be contained within the existing landscape 'bowl'
• The extension to the west of the existing turbines will affect some views towards the Highland edge from the Ochils
• In some views from the north, the proposed turbines will be seen in a different landscape context ie the proposed turbines will be viewed in front of the skyline but the existing ones are behind the skyline
The design of the turbines, if approved, should match the existing turbines.
SNH also advise that the proposal would exacerbate the predicted adverse visual and landscape impact that the proposed Frandy Hill windfarm would create if it was approved at Appeal. Subject to the proposed mitigation measures, they are satisfied that the development would not have any individual unacceptable or cumulative impacts on European Protected Species or Sites, other ornithological interests, the biodiversity value of the peat habitat or peat slide risk.
SEPA Subject to the prior approval of an Environmental No Management Plan and Peat Management Plan, including mitigation measures, they have raised no objection relating to potential impacts on hydrology, pollution, drainage.
67 Scottish Review of ES carried out comprising Historic No Government Scotland, Transport Scotland and Environmental Quality Division. No adverse comments made. Historic Scotland advise that they are satisfied that the development would have no significant impacts on Cat A Listed Buildings, Gardens and Designed Landscapes or Scheduled Monuments.
Scottish Water No adverse comments in response to the No consultation or written communication from the Service regarding their water supply interests in the vicinity.
NATS No objection in relation to safeguarding en route air No traffic
BAA Glasgow No Objection No
MOD Request individual turbines are fitted with infrared No aviation lighting. Comment: This could be regulated using a planning Condition.
Civil Aviation No adverse comments No Authority
Clackmannan- Environmental Health - no objection but recommend No shire Council a condition is attached in respect of turbine noise levels at the nearest house (Backhills Farm)
Roads - No objection
Friends of the They raise the following issues: Yes Ochils • The difficulty in determining the cumulative landscape and visual impact of the development given the separate and independent decision making process related to the proposed windfarm at Frandy Hill (at Appeal with Scottish Ministers) and the proposed 2 No turbines at Glenhead, Glendevon (Perth and Kinross Council)
• The decision making process should take account of the draft Clackmannanshire Local Development Plan and the information in the
68 report titled "Landscape Sensitivity Study (LSS) for Wind Turbine Development in Clackmannanshire"
• The applicant has not fully addressed its concerns about the standard or quality of some of the photographs/montages in the SEI
• The proposal would have an unacceptable level of visual intrusion into the landscape as well as levels of cumulative impacts. The development would further damage the views from the important summit of Ben Cleuch and would increase the visual spread of turbines by over 50%. Refusal would be consistent with the advice in the LSS.
• If the proposed turbines had been included in the original application, the development may have been refused or amended.
• The proposals by the applicant are at odds with the provision of the draft LDP in terms of landscape protection and the Ochils Landscape Partnership. The extension would create "windfarm landscape" in the Ochils
Regional No direct impact on any known archaeological No Archaeologist remains. Mitigation proposed to safeguard a collapsed shepherd's cairn.
Community Tillicoultry - No objection No Councils
Alva – Objection * Yes
Dollar - No objection *. However, the 3 applications No if all approved would have an adverse cumulative impact on views from popular summits in the Ochils. This could affect the local tourism economy.
Muckhart - No objection * but requests that any No decision is based on a full and comprehensive cumulative impact assessment taking account of other wind energy proposals in the Ochils and the quarry development at Glen Quey.
69 Braco and Greenloaning – Objection * Adverse Yes impact on landscape and visual amenity of area which is part of a main tourism route. The technology is an inefficient means to generate electricity. No Blackford - No response No Auchterarder - No Response
* NB These community councils have made no comments on the amended proposals
Muckhart and Objection based on the adverse impact on Yes Glendevon landscape, the recreational enjoyment of the Ochils, Amenity the local tourism economy and cumulative impacts Society with windfarms
RSPB No objection subject to the proposed mitigation No measures to minimise the impact on habitat and bird species, including wet land restoration
Fife Council No response No
Stirling No response No Council
Central No response No Scotland Raptor Study Group
Ramblers No response received from the Association No Association Scotland
Visit Scotland No response No
Forth District No response No Salmon Fishery Board Scottish No response No Power
70
APPENDIX 3 - LIST OF REPRESENTEES
REPRESENTEE Robert McIntyre NAME AND ADDRESS: Treetops 99 Fir Park Tillicoultry Clackmannanshire FK13 6PJ
COMMENT TYPE OBJECTION
REPRESENTEE Mr Davie Black NAME AND ADDRESS: 39 Harviestoun Grove Tillicoultry FK13 6QS COMMENT TYPE OBJECTION
REPRESENTEE Mr Richard Coles NAME AND ADDRESS: Redford Farm Braco Dunblane FK15 9LG COMMENT TYPE OBJECTION
REPRESENTEE Mr Edward Elworthy NAME AND ADDRESS: Orchil Den Braco Dunblane FK15 9LF COMMENT TYPE OBJECTION
71 REPRESENTEE Michael Boxer And Sheila MacGregor NAME AND ADDRESS: Knoxfauld Dunblane Perthshire FK15 9JU COMMENT TYPE OBJECTION
REPRESENTEE Ms Katrina MacGregor NAME AND ADDRESS: Avonlea 14 Woodhead Place Coalsnaughton FK136LQ COMMENT TYPE OBJECTION
REPRESENTEE Neil Gray NAME AND ADDRESS: Colliers International 39 George Street Edinburgh EH12 2HN COMMENT TYPE OBJECTION
REPRESENTEE Mr Brian Cheeseman NAME AND ADDRESS: 40 Hamilton Street Tillicoultry Clackmannanshire FK13 6EL COMMENT TYPE SUPPORT
REPRESENTEE Mrs Liz Albert NAME AND ADDRESS: 11 Pullar Avenue Bridge of Allan Stirling FK9 4TB COMMENT TYPE OBJECTION
72
REPRESENTEE J C Loudoun NAME AND ADDRESS: 5 Merlin Park Dollar Clackmannanshire FK14 7BZ COMMENT TYPE OBJECTION
REPRESENTEE Mr David McLeod NAME AND ADDRESS: The Gunnocks Braco Dunblane FK15 9LJ COMMENT TYPE OBJECTION
REPRESENTEE Valeria Dunkling NAME AND ADDRESS: 40 Hamilton Street Tillicoultry Clackmannanshire FK13 6EL COMMENT TYPE SUPPORT
REPRESENTEE Dr M V Bell NAME AND ADDRESS: 48 Newton Crescent Dunblane Perthshire FK15 0DZ COMMENT TYPE OBJECTION
REPRESENTEE Brian Nicholls NAME AND ADDRESS: Blairlogie Park Hillfoots Road Blairlogie By Stirling FK9 5PY COMMENT TYPE OBJECTION
73
REPRESENTEE Mr Brian Frost NAME AND ADDRESS: 32, Grange Terrace Bo'ness EH519DS COMMENT TYPE OBJECTION
REPRESENTEE Julie Shortreed NAME AND ADDRESS: Innerdownie Cottage Path Of Condie Perthshire PH2 9DW COMMENT TYPE OBJECTION
REPRESENTEE Alan Cameron NAME AND ADDRESS: Fairwood Newton Loan Dunblane FK15 0HF COMMENT TYPE OBJECTION
REPRESENTEE Robert Ramage NAME AND ADDRESS: 15 Glenwinnel Road Alva Clackmannanshire FK12 5NX COMMENT TYPE OBJECTION
REPRESENTEE Mr Angus Annan NAME AND ADDRESS: Easter Cottage Blairlogie Stirling FK9 5PX COMMENT TYPE OBJECTION
74
REPRESENTEE R W Neish NAME AND ADDRESS: Innerdownie Cottage Path Of Condie Perth PH2 9DW COMMENT TYPE OBJECTION
REPRESENTEE Mr Andrew Johns NAME AND ADDRESS: Lethans View Hillside Saline KY12 9TD COMMENT TYPE OBJECTION
REPRESENTEE Mr Robert Balding NAME AND ADDRESS: Spring Cottage High Street Whitchurch, Buckinghamshire HP22 4JA COMMENT TYPE OBJECTION
REPRESENTEE Pete Drummond NAME AND ADDRESS: 8 Academy Place Coatbridge ML5 3AX COMMENT TYPE OBJECTION
REPRESENTEE Mr Scott Peddie NAME AND ADDRESS: 9 Pitheavlis Castle Gardens Perth PH2 0LF COMMENT TYPE OBJECTION
75 REPRESENTEE Ms Elizabeth Bibby NAME AND ADDRESS: Bonnyton Lodge Craigluscar Road Dunfermline KY12 9HT COMMENT TYPE OBJECTION
REPRESENTEE Simon Robertson NAME AND ADDRESS: 6 Ardeer Place Dunfermline KY11 4YX COMMENT TYPE OBJECTION
REPRESENTEE Mr & Mrs Kenneth & Sheena Hirstwood NAME AND ADDRESS: 2 Elmvale Auchterarder PH3 1QQ COMMENT TYPE OBJECTION
REPRESENTEE Dr Nicki Baker NAME AND ADDRESS: Parkhead Logie Stirling FK9 4LS COMMENT TYPE OBJECTION
REPRESENTEE Dr David Gordon NAME AND ADDRESS: 60 Bonhard Road Scone Perthshire PH2 6QB COMMENT TYPE OBJECTION
76 REPRESENTEE Ms Anne Martin NAME AND ADDRESS: Tower Hotel Alloa Road Clackmannan FK10 4HH COMMENT TYPE OBJECTION
REPRESENTEE Mr Andy Cloquet NAME AND ADDRESS: 33 Millar Place Stirling FK8 1XB COMMENT TYPE OBJECTION
REPRESENTEE Mr George Horsburgh NAME AND ADDRESS: Camsara 3 Dumyat Rd Alva FK12 5NN COMMENT TYPE OBJECTION
REPRESENTEE Euan Ramage NAME AND ADDRESS: 2 Norwood Avenue Alloa Clackmannanshire FK10 2BX COMMENT TYPE OBJECTION
REPRESENTEE Stuart Dean NAME AND ADDRESS: Friends Of The Ochils Viewfield Muckhart DOLLAR FK14 7JN COMMENT TYPE OBJECTION
77
REPRESENTEE Ms Elke Braun NAME AND ADDRESS: 35 Weavers Way Tillicoultry FK13 6BD COMMENT TYPE OBJECTION
REPRESENTEE Councillor Michael A Barnacle NAME AND ADDRESS: 2 High Street Perth PH1 5PH COMMENT TYPE OBJECTION
REPRESENTEE Mr and Mrs Gibson and Lynne McGeachie NAME AND ADDRESS: 4 Drummond Park Crook of Devon Kinross KY13 0UX COMMENT TYPE OBJECTION
REPRESENTEE Gordon Isdale NAME AND ADDRESS: 1 Blackford House Moray Street Blackford PH4 1QR COMMENT TYPE SUPPORT
REPRESENTEE Mr Graham Owens NAME AND ADDRESS: North Cottage, Meikle Seggie By Milnathort Kinross KY13 0RP COMMENT TYPE OBJECTION
78 REPRESENTEE Hugh Spencer NAME AND ADDRESS: 3 Westwood Way Westhill Aberdeen AB32 6XG COMMENT TYPE OBJECTION
REPRESENTEE Mr G Miller NAME AND ADDRESS: 20 Devonway Clackmannan Clackmannanshire FK10 4LF
COMMENT TYPE SUPPORT
REPRESENTEE Malcolm Best NAME AND ADDRESS: Glenquey Farm Glendevon Perthshire FK14 7JX COMMENT TYPE OBJECTION
REPRESENTEE Sheena Dean NAME AND ADDRESS: Viewfield Muckhart DOLLAR Clackmannanshire FK14 7JN COMMENT TYPE OBJECTION
REPRESENTEE Dr Brian Jamieson NAME AND ADDRESS: Manorcroft Manor Loan Blairlogie FK9 6PJ
79 COMMENT TYPE OBJECTION
REPRESENTEE W G R Thomson NAME AND ADDRESS: The Old House Of Orchil Braco Perthshire FK15 9LF COMMENT TYPE OBJECTION
REPRESENTEE Muckhart And Glendevon Amenity Society NAME AND ADDRESS: Viewfield Muckhart Clackmannanshire FK14 7JN
COMMENT TYPE OBJECTION
REPRESENTEE Dollar Community Council NAME AND ADDRESS: Fiona Fisher Kiloran DOLLAR Clackmannanshire FK14 7PL COMMENT TYPE REPRESENTATION
REPRESENTEE Mr Eric Howman NAME AND ADDRESS: 52 High St Dollar Clackmannanshire FK14 7BA COMMENT TYPE OBJECTION
80 REPRESENTEE Ms Helen Burnett NAME AND ADDRESS: An Acail Blairhoyle Stirling FK8 3LF COMMENT TYPE SUPPORT
REPRESENTEE Mr David Myatt NAME AND ADDRESS: Blairhill Gardens Rumbling Bridge Kinross KY13 0PU COMMENT TYPE OBJECTION
REPRESENTEE Mr Allen Colverson NAME AND ADDRESS: 12 Royal Terrace Falkland KY15 7AX COMMENT TYPE OBJECTION
REPRESENTEE Mr Ian Gordon NAME AND ADDRESS: 46 Hill Street Tillicoultry FK13 6HF COMMENT TYPE REPRESENTATION
REPRESENTEE Virginia And Peter Wills NAME AND ADDRESS: Glentye Sheriffmuir FK15 0LN COMMENT TYPE OBJECTION
81 REPRESENTEE Friends Of The Ochils NAME AND ADDRESS: Stuart Dean Viewfield Muckhart Dollar FK14 7JN COMMENT TYPE OBJECTION
REPRESENTEE Mike Bisset NAME AND ADDRESS: Ryecroft Ealshill STIRLING FK7 9QX COMMENT TYPE SUPPORT
REPRESENTEE T G MacGregor NAME AND ADDRESS: Daldorn Doune FK16 6HH COMMENT TYPE SUPPORT
REPRESENTEE Robert Blair NAME AND ADDRESS: Pennytersal Farm Kilmacolm COMMENT TYPE SUPPORT
REPRESENTEE Terry Hollis NAME AND ADDRESS: Muckhart Community Council 1 Cairns Place Muckhart Nr Dollar FK14 7LH COMMENT TYPE REPRESENTATION
82 REPRESENTEE John M Lonie NAME AND ADDRESS: 'Fairwind' 7 Teleford Gardens Birnam By Dunkeld Perthshire PH8 0QB COMMENT TYPE OBJECTION
REPRESENTEE Mr G Owens NAME AND ADDRESS: North Cottage Meikle Seggie By Milnathort Kinross KY13 0RP COMMENT TYPE OBJECTION
REPRESENTEE David Scott NAME AND ADDRESS: 3 Alexander Drive Bridge Of Allan STIRLING FK9 4QB COMMENT TYPE OBJECTION
REPRESENTEE Mrs Penelope Senotair NAME AND ADDRESS: Footpaths And Access 34 Southbank Drive Kirkintilloch East Dumbartonshire G66 1XJ COMMENT TYPE OBJECTION
83 REPRESENTEE David Turner NAME AND ADDRESS: Carrat Farm STIRLING FK9 4UN COMMENT TYPE SUPPORT
REPRESENTEE Douglas Steel NAME AND ADDRESS: Broughmore Farm Fintry Stirlingshire
COMMENT TYPE SUPPORT
REPRESENTEE William Millar NAME AND ADDRESS: 4 Muirside Road Tullibody Clackmannanshire FK10 2SP COMMENT TYPE SUPPORT
84 284000 285000 286000 287000 288000 289000 290000 291000 292000 293000 294000 295000 296000
Proposed Burnfoot Hill Extension 705000 PERTH & KINROSS 2 Turbines 705000
Existing Burnfoot Hill Windfarm 13 Turbines 704000 704000
703000 Proposed Frandy 703000 Hill Windfarm 7 Turbines
702000 Proposed Rhodders 702000 Windfarm 6 Turbines STIRLING 701000 701000 700000 700000
699000 CLACKMANNANSHIRE 699000 698000 698000 284000 285000 286000 287000 288000 289000 290000 291000 292000 293000 294000 295000 296000
11/00299/FULL - Site West Of Burnfoot Hill, Tillicoultry Extension to Existing Windfarm, Comprising 6 No Turbines, Wind Monitoring Mast, Switchgear Building, Temporary Construction Compounds and Ancillary Work - Amended Proposal - at Rhodders Wind Farm
Development & Environmental Services Ward: Clackmannanshire North OS Grid Ref: NN Kilncraigs Greenside Street Date: 0 1,000 2,000 Alloa 04-Jun-2013 Metres Scale: 1:50,000 FK10 1EB Reproduced by permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of HMSO. © Crown copyright and database right 2013. Tel: 01259 450 000 Fax: 01259 727 452 All rights reserved. Ordnance Survey Licence number 100020783. 85 [email protected]
86 Lochelbank
Greenknowes Frandy Hill Burnfoot Hill Extension
Glenhead
Rhodders Burnfoot Hill
0 5 10 15 Plan 2: Location Of Other Windfarm Developments km Or Applications Within The Ochils Hills Scale :1:200,000 Date: 04 June 2013 Services to Communities Paper Size : A4 Kilncraigs Greenside Street Alloa Reproduced by permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of HMSO. FK10 1EB © Crown copyright and database right 2013. All rights reserved. Tel: 01259 450 000 Fax: 01259 727 452 Ordnance Survey Licence number 100020783. [email protected] 87
88